So, if I were to decide at some point to leave the PCUSA, I would still have [name of valued liberal Presbyterian] in my church. Just like I have millions of Lutherans, Episcopalians, Catholics, Pentecostals, and Independents in “my church.” My church, after all, isn’t mine. It’s the church of Jesus Christ, in which all who confess him as Lord and Savior are members.
Why Did Jesus Have to Die?
Roman, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives
Click here for an updated and complete version of this series.
by Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts
Copyright © 2010 by Mark D. Roberts and Beliefnet
Note: You may download this resource at no cost, for personal use, for use in a Christian ministry, or for use in an educational venture, as long as you are not publishing it for sale. All I ask is that you give credit to this website: http://blog.beliefnet.com/markdroberts/. For all other uses, please contact me at mark@markdroberts.com. Thank you.
Introduction
As we approach the season of Lent, and then Holy Week and Easter, I propose to consider the question: “Why did Jesus have to die?” At the outset, I must say that this isn’t an easy question to answer for several reasons. Let me mention three.
First, when it comes to the death of Jesus, we’re dealing with an historical event concerning which we have limited historical sources. We don’t have some of the sources that would make our task much easier, the diary of Pontius Pilate, for example, or notes from the proceedings of the Jewish council that examined Jesus prior to his crucifixion. Therefore, when I try to explain why Pilate or certain Jewish leaders believed that Jesus had to die, I’ll have to extrapolate from the evidence that is available to us. I do believe, however, that this evidence, both in the New Testament Gospels and in other ancient sources, is strong enough to allow us to formulate likely hypotheses concerning Roman and Jewish motivations for the crucifixion of Jesus.
Second, the question of why Jesus was put to death is a matter of considerable scholarly disagreement. For centuries it was common to put all the blame on “the Jews.” But the horror of the Holocaust combined with new historical insights has led scholars in almost completely the opposite direction. Many claim that “the Jews,” even Jewish leaders, had little or nothing to do with the death of Jesus. In my opinion, as you’ll see, the pendulum that had once swung way too far in the direction of “the Jews” has now swung too far back in the opposite “Romans only” direction. I’ll have more to say about this later.
I should add at this point that I am aware of the shameful history of anti-Semitism and the danger of anti-Semitism that is very much alive today. This does make it tricky to deal with the historical evidence in a straightforward way, because if one concludes that some Jews were somewhat responsible for the death of Jesus, this might fuel anti-Semitic attitudes and actions. So, I will say at the outset that nothing in the historical record justifies hatred of or mistreat of Jews, or any other people, for that matter.
Third, there is not one, simple, obvious answer to the question of why Jesus had to die. From a historical point of view, we have to deal with at least two perspectives, Roman and Jewish. In fact, I’ll show that there was more than one Jewish point of view on Jesus’ death. So it is really too simple to speak of “the Jewish perspective” on the necessity of Jesus’ death.
Furthermore, historical explanation doesn’t exhaust the realm of discourse when it comes to the reason for Jesus’ death. We also need to deal with the whole area of theology. We’ll want to know why, in light of his understanding of God, Jesus himself believed that he needed to die. Moreover, we must also examine early Christian thinking concerning why Jesus’ death was necessary for the salvation of the world. In the end, therefore, the answer to the simple question “Why did Jesus have to die?” will be anything but simple. It will have multiple layers and nuances.
Nevertheless, this is a task well worth the effort, both in the writing and in the reading. No matter what you think about Jesus, you will help yourself and your world if you’re able to discuss his death intelligently. This is especially true given the tendency of this conversation to become terribly anti-Semitic. In a world where hatred of Jews is on the increase, all thoughtful, compassionate human beings need to be informed about just who was responsible for the death of Jesus and why.
Finally, if, like me, you believe that the crucifixion of Jesus stands at the very center of history, then knowing why Jesus had to die is just about the most important bit of knowledge you can have.
In my next post I’ll lay out some basic parameters for the rest of this series: how I’m going to structure the series and some of the foundational facts upon which I’ll build the structure.
Where Do We Start When Considering the Death of Jesus? Some Basic Facts
Where should we start in our effort to discover why Jesus had to die? I propose to begin with some basic historical facts, facts that are affirmed by almost every historian and biblical scholar, even those who approach this question from a highly critical and skeptical starting point. So what are these facts:
Jesus was crucified. There were many ways in the first-century for a criminal to be put to death, including stoning, beheading, being torn apart by beasts, etc. Yet all the earliest sources attest to the crucifixion of Jesus. These sources include, in addition to the New Testament writings, the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18.3.3, A.D. 95) and the Roman historian Tacitus (Annals 15.44, A.D. 109)(Photo: Painting by El Greco, “The Crucifixion,” 1596-1600)Jesus was crucified during the governorship and under the authority of Pontius Pilate. Once again, this basic fact is confirmed in Josephus and Tacitus in addition to the New Testament.
Pilate placed a sign on Jesus’ cross that read “The King of the Jews.” This fact is found in all four New Testament Gospels and in some later non-canonical gospels as well. This “title” helps to explain the nature of the charges against Jesus.
Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem on or near the Jewish feast of Passover. Again, all New Testament Gospels agree on these basic facts, and there is every reason to believe that they are accurate (though the precise timing of Jesus’ death in relationship to Passover is hard to pin down).
These basic facts, though apparently obvious and unspectacular, will actually prove to be very helpful as we try to figure out the reasons for Jesus’ death.
As I mentioned in my previous post, the question “Why did Jesus have to die?” doesn’t have a simple answer. I propose to address this question from four different perspectives:
• Roman: Why did Pontius Pilate think Jesus had to die?• Jewish: Why did some Jewish leaders think Jesus had to die?
• Jesus: Why did Jesus himself think that he had to die?
• Early Christian: Why did early Christians think Jesus had to die?
In my next post I’ll begin with the Roman perspective.
Click here for an updated and complete version of this series.
The fact that Jesus was crucified rather than stoned, hanged, or killed in some other way means that the Romans were ultimately responsible for his death. Of course this is clear in the biblical gospels. But even if we lacked such primary sources, the simple fact that a man was crucified in Jerusalem around A.D. 30 implies that, for some reason or other, he was condemned by Roman authorities. Jews in the first-century A.D. didn’t crucify people. This horrible means of execution was the prerogative of the Romans, who used it with chilling effect.
The Roman Practice of Crucifixion
If we want to know why a Roman authority, in this case, the prefect Pontius Pilate, would choose to crucify someone, we might look first at the Roman practice of crucifixion in general. Although Rome didn’t invent this means of execution, the nation perfected it as one of the most horrible means of putting criminals to death. In fact, not all Roman convicts sentenced to death were crucified. Crucifixion was reserved for the lowest of the low, and most of all for those who openly opposed Roman power. Commit a serious crime and Rome might cut off your head; rebel against Roman rule or upset Roman peace and you might be headed to a cross. I say “might be” because Roman citizens were protected from crucifixion, unless they happened to be treasonous soldiers. (Photo: The Via Appia in Rome. When the slave Spartacus led a rebellion against Rome in 73-71 B.C., the Romans finally prevailed. They crucified 6,000 men, stringing them along the Via Appia for 120 miles, from Rome to Capua.)
Why was crucifixion so horrible? For one thing, the victim experienced some of the most extreme pain that a person can experience and the duration of suffering often lasted several days. But, even beyond personal suffering, the crucified person experienced extreme shame in a world that valued honor supremely. Contrary to most portrayals of Jesus’ death, those sentenced to crucifixion were naked when attached to the cross, in full view of the masses.
The Romans made every effort to crucify people in public places, such as along major thoroughfares. The point was to augment the dishonor and suffering of the one being killed, not to mention his family and colleagues. (It seems, by the way, that the Romans did not crucify women.) As the Roman rhetorician Quintilian explained, “Whenever we crucify the guilty, the most crowded roads are chosen, where most people can see and be moved by this fear. For penalties relate not so much to retribution as to their exemplary effect” (Quintilian, Declamations 274). Thus the point of crucifixion was not only punishment, but also deterrence.
Not surprisingly, the Romans crucified Jews when they rebelled against imperial rule. I’ll examine a couple of telling instances in my next post.
In my last post I began to examine the Roman practice of crucifixion, arguing that if we want to understand why a Roman governor had Jesus crucified, we should first understand why Rome used crucifixion in general. What we discovered was that crucifixion, in addition to being an extremely horrific punishment of criminals, was thought to be an effective deterrent against sedition. “Watch someone get crucified for challenging our authority,” the Romans believed, “and you’ll be unlikely to challenge our authority yourself.” If you’ve seen The Passion of the Christ, you can certainly understand Roman logic here. Crucifixion was cruel beyond cruel.
Roman Crucifixion Among the Jews
Even the threat of crucifixion didn’t completely squelch attempts to overthrow Roman rule, however, least of all among the Jews. Shortly after the death of Herod the Great in 4 B.C., thousands of Jews sought to toss the Romans out of Judea. Of course the Romans didn’t take kindly to this, sending an army to squash the rebellion. When the rebels fled into the country, the Roman general Varus pursued them. The first-century Jewish historian Josephus describes what happened next:
Upon this, Varus sent a part of his army into the country, to seek out those that had been the authors of the revolt; and when they were discovered, he punished some of them that were most guilty, and some he dismissed: now the number of those that were crucified on this account were two thousand. (Antiquities 17.10.10)
Two thousand rebels crucified at one time! Now that would surely give restless Jews second thoughts before challenging Roman tyranny again. (Photo: The Arch of Titus in Rome, which celebrates the Roman victory over the Jews in A.D. 70.)
Seven decades later, thousands upon thousands of Jews revolted against Roman rule. For a short time they appeared to have prevailed. But, once again, Rome sent a superior military force to Judea. Soon the Jews were trapped in Jerusalem, surrounded by the Roman army besieging the city. Recognizing their hopeless condition, some Jews actually tried to escape, but to no avail. According to Josephus, when they were caught, “they were first whipped, and then tormented with all sorts of tortures before they died, and were then crucified before the wall of the city” (Jewish War, 5.11.1). This happened to at least 500 people daily, according to Josephus. So disgusting was the mass torture of Jewish prisoners that even the Roman General Titus felt pity on them. But he let the brutality continue. Why? Josephus explains: “The main reason why he did not forbid that cruelty was this, that he hoped the Jews might perhaps yield at that sight, out of fear lest they might themselves afterwards be liable to the same cruel treatment” (Jewish War, 5.11.1).
To conclude what we have learned about Romans and crucifixion, Rome reserved crucifixion for the worst of criminals, especially for those who stirred up rebellion against the state. Because the point of crucifixion, beyond punishment, was deterrence, crosses were placed in public places so people would learn to fear the wrath of Rome. When Jews challenged Roman authority, they, like others rebels against Rome, were crucified if caught.
But is this relevant of the case of Jesus? Did Jesus challenge Roman authority such that Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea in the time of Jesus, believed he must be crucified? Does what we have learned about Roman crucifixion help to explain Jesus’ own death? To these questions I’ll turn in my next post.
Introduction to Pontius Pilate
If we’re going to understand the Roman perspective on the death of Jesus, we need to know something of the Roman man who was legally responsible for his crucifixion: Pontius Pilate. Traditionally, Pilate has been seen by Christians in relatively positive terms, as one who really didn’t want to crucify Jesus but who did so because he was compelled to by the Jewish leaders and crowds. This image of Pilate, that seems to emerge from the New Testament gospels, doesn’t fit with what we know about Pontius Pilate from historical sources, including the gospels themselves. Let me survey this evidence briefly.
Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea from 26-37 A.D. An inscription discovered in the ruins of a Roman theater in Caesarea reveals that Pilate’s official Roman title was “prefect” (Latin, praefectus). In this role he was ultimately responsible for all matters in Judea, including judicial and financial affairs. Pilate governed from the provincial capital of Judea, Caesarea (Maratima), a city on the Mediterranean coast, about 75 miles northwest of Jerusalem. He would make the trip to Jerusalem only when necessary. Pilate was accountable to the governor of Syria, through whom he was ultimately subservient to the Roman Emperor. (Photo: This inscription identifies Pontius Pilate as the [Praef]ectus Iuda[eae]).
Pilate does not figure prominently in first-century Roman histories, a fact that suggests that he was a relatively insignificant leader. Moreover, the assignment to govern Judea was no plum, and some of those who served in Pilate’s position were known to complain about it. Not only was it potentially a dead-end job, but also it was fraught with complications.
The complications had largely to do with what the Romans would see as the peculiarities and propensities of the Jews. The peculiarities were, by and large, Jewish religious sensibilities that put them at odds with Roman norms. Jews, for example, did not follow the Roman model in welcoming all sorts of gods into their pantheon. On the contrary, Jews would die for their belief in one and only one God. Jewish propensities had to do with general unrest and fairly regular attempts by some Jews to rebel against Roman rule. When one became prefect of Judea, one could expect trouble.
Pilate’s inability (or unwillingness) to respect Jewish sensibilities is seen in an event recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18.3.1). Unlike previous governors, when Pilate took charge, he brought images of Caesar into Jerusalem in order to display them. This enraged the Jewish population, who took this as a violation of their law and as an insult. Multitudes of people traveled to Caesarea in order to ask Pilate to remove the images. At first he refused and, when the petitioners persisted, he was prepared to kill them. But when they showed themselves willing to die rather than have their laws violated, Pilate finally relented. In another instance when he offended Jewish sensibilities, Pilate did not show mercy, and those who protested were slaughtered by soldiers under Pilate’s command (Antiquities, 18.3.2).
The New Testament actually confirms this picture of a cruel Pilate. In Luke 13:1 we read, “At that very time there were some present who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.” We don’t know anything else about this incident. But it appears that, for some reason, Pilate killed some Galileans who had come to the Jerusalem temple in order to offer sacrifices to God. Yet, not only did Pilate have them killed, he also had their own blood mingled with the blood of the animals they had sacrificed. Talk about adding insult to injury!
The first-century Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria once wrote a letter to Caesar, in which, among other things, he complained about the harshness of Pontius Pilate. Philo blames Pilate explicitly for: “briberies, insults, robberies, outrages, wanton injustices, constantly repeated executions without trial, and ceaseless and grievous cruelty.” (Legatio ad Gaium, 301-302). Even granting Philo’s bias against Pilate, this text doesn’t reflect well upon Pilate’s governorship. In the end, he was removed from office by the Syrian governor, Vitellius, though we don’t know exactly why.
But what about the image of Pilate as the reflective leader who is reticent to kill Jesus, and who even converses with Jesus about the nature of truth? I’ll address this picture in greater detail later. But for now, I’d simply observe that the gospel accounts of Jesus’ trial can be read as confirming the negative image of Pilate.
Pilate’s ultimate responsibility was to oversee Judean affairs, to squash outright rebellion, to keep the tax money flowing to Rome, and, in general, to preserve the fragile peace of the region. And it is this, which, above all, seemed to be at risk when Jesus came to Jerusalem around the feast of Passover. In my next post in this series I’ll examine the peculiar dynamics of Jerusalem in the time of the festival.
The Roman Perspective, Part 4
As I explained in my last post, Pontius Pilate, the prefect of Judea during the time of Jesus, governed his territory from Caesarea, a city on the Mediterranean sea about 75 miles northwest of Jerusalem. Immediate authority over Jerusalem itself he had delegated to Caiaphas, whom Pilate had appointed high priest of the Jewish temple.
Pilate and the Danger of Passover
But, each year during his tenure in Judea, Pilate journeyed to Jerusalem in the spring. He wanted to be in this city during the Jewish celebration of Passover. It’s not that he had any fondness for the Jews and their rituals. Rather, Pilate needed to be in Jerusalem at this time to preserve order. He didn’t trust Caiaphas with such an important task at such a volatile time.
The Passover was, after all, a festival in which Jews remembered how God had delivered them from foreign domination. During the celebration of the Passover meal they not only thanked God for his deliverance in the past, but also prayed for him to do so again. Thus the Passover itself could easily inspire anti-Roman feelings, if not outright rebellion.
Moreover, the population of Jerusalem swelled greatly during the festival. Though it’s difficult to determine precisely the population of Jerusalem during the time of Roman rule, 35,000 wouldn’t be too far off base. During the Passover, however, this number swelled by a figure of ten or more. Josephus reports that 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 people gathered in the city for the festival (Jewish War, 2.14.3, 6.9.3). While most scholars believe that Josephus exaggerated, his estimates testify to the large number of pilgrims who came to Jerusalem for Passover. A more conservative estimate would be in the 300,000-400,000 range. Pilate knew that crowds of Jews jammed together in a small area was a formula for disaster. (Photo: A picture of a crowd in Jerusalem, gathered by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1989.)
Given the themes of Passover and the massive temporary population of Jerusalem, it’s easy to see why Pilate felt it necessary to come to the city and why he would have done so with trepidation. Pilate was well aware of the fact that Jerusalem was a powder keg ready to blow during Passover. In fact, Josephus, talking about an earlier ruler who had tyrannized the Jews, mentions that “the nation of the Jews made an insurrection against him at a festival; for at those feasts seditions are generally begun” (Jewish War, 1.4.3, emphasis added).
Pilate didn’t come to Jerusalem unprepared. To help keep the peace, he brought with him a few thousand Roman soldiers from Syria. But, even then, the odds would not be in his favor if the Jews decided to stir up rebellion, since the soldiers were outnumbered by a factor of at least one hundred to one.
Given the tenuous peace of Jerusalem, Pilate must have been greatly distressed by early reports about Jesus’ actions in Jerusalem. This popular prophet from Nazareth had been welcomed into the city by a crowd of his followers who hailed him as a conquering king. Then, Jesus created a ruckus in the Jewish temple, even prohibiting sacrifices from being offered for several hours. So, while Pilate might have smirked to think of the distress this had given Caiaphas, nevertheless he’d be worried. What was Jesus’ agenda? What had he come to Jerusalem to do? Was he seditious? Was he fomenting rebellion against Rome? Pilate’s initial strategy was to watch and wait. Maybe, just maybe, he’d be lucky, and the Passover would conclude without incident. Then Jesus would go back to Galilee where he came from, and Pilate would return to Caesarea, where he could govern Judea a safe distance away from the time bomb of Jerusalem.
Pilate’s hopes for an uneventful Passover were dashed when, early on Friday morning, the problem posed by Jesus of Nazareth exploded in his face. In my next post, I’ll examine more closely Pilate’s interaction with Jesus and his accusers.
In my last two posts in this series on the death of Jesus, I offered a picture of Pontius Pilate and described the unique dangers he faced in Jerusalem during the Jewish celebration of Passover. In light of this background, today I’ll examine the biblical account of Pilate’s interaction with Jewish leaders.
Pilate’s Encounter with Jesus and the Jewish Leaders
Early on Friday morning, after Jesus of Nazareth had entered Jerusalem, Pontius Pilate was awakened by a group of Jewish leaders who had brought Jesus to him with the intention of having Jesus crucified. They accused Jesus of “perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king” (Luke 23:2). When Pilate questioned Jesus, the accused was strangely quiet. Finally the governor cut to the chase. “Are you the king of the Jews?” he asked. “You say so,” was all Jesus said in reply (Luke 23:3). When Pilate mentioned to the Jewish leaders that their charges against Jesus weren’t persuasive, they added, “He stirs up the people by teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee where he began even to this place” (Luke 23:5). It’s likely that this was not news to Pilate, who had probably been following the unusual exploits of Jesus for some time. Roman governors kept an eye out for Jewish prophets who announced the coming of God’s kingdom. (Photo: Mihály Munkácsy, Christ in front of Pilate, 1881.)
Once the Jewish leaders had brought Jesus to Pilate, the question of his fate lay in the governor’s hands. Certainly he could follow the recommendation of the leaders, including the high priest, Caiaphas, whom he had appointed. But killing Jesus had a considerable downside. Pilate was surely aware of Jesus’ popularity among the people. He might even have known before Friday that the Jewish leaders were trying to do away with Jesus, but were reticent to do so because he was so popular with the people. Killing Jesus might well have incited the people to riot (Mark 14:2), something neither the Jewish officials nor Pilate would have wanted. If Pilate were perceived by the people as the one responsible for the death of their popular prophet, then he might end up causing a ruckus or even a revolt that could very well lead to his own downfall.
Yet Pilate would surely have preferred to get Jesus out of the way somehow. Though he was not seditious in the ordinary sense – Jesus carried no weapons, organized no army, and had not assaulted any Roman authorities – nevertheless the Nazarene was clearly a rabble-rouser from Pilate’s point of view. And even if he didn’t explicitly espouse the overthrow of Rome, he certainly flirted with the seditious language of kingship.
Two other factors contributed to Pilate’s reticence to execute Jesus. First, his interaction with Jesus convinced him that the Galilean was no ordinary insurrectionist. It’s hard to reconstruct from the Gospel accounts exactly what Pilate thought of Jesus. If he truly believed him to be innocent and no threat to Rome, then it’s unlikely that he would have had Jesus crucified. But, Pilate must have seen that Jesus was in a completely different league from the others he had crucified. (Of course I’m aware that Christian tradition paints Pilate as a truth-seeker who genuinely believes in Jesus’ innocence. But this image doesn’t fit what we know about Pilate from history, not to mention the indisputable fact that Pilate himself was, in the end, responsible for Jesus’ death. It’s very hard to imagine that Pilate was bullied, either by Jewish leaders or by the mob, into doing something that he really didn’t want to do. I believe that many of the statements in the gospels that seem to reflect the “noble Pilate” were in fact originally spoken by the governor in order to incite the Jews to accept greater responsibility for Jesus’ death, thus exonerating Pilate in the eyes of the people. Or, in other cases, I believe Pilate’s tone was ironic or sarcastic. When he asked Jesus, “What is truth?” Pilate wasn’t beginning a philosophical dialogue, but simply mocking Jesus, who had just spoken of “belonging to the truth” (John 18:37-38).
The second factor that contributed to Pilate’s reticence to execute Jesus was a recommendation from his wife that he should “have nothing to do with” Jesus. Pilate’s wife claimed to have “suffered a great deal because of a dream about him” (Matthew 27:19). Pilate, like most pagans, was in all likelihood quite superstitious, and his wife’s nightmare would have spooked him as well.
From Pilate’s perspective, what would have been the best outcome of this whole mess? Somehow get Jesus to stop causing trouble, but without inciting the people to riot. If silencing Jesus required his death, then so be it, but let it be someone else’s fault other than Pilate’s. If Jesus could be shut down by some other means – like flogging – then this would also be an acceptable option.
In my next post I’ll finish explaining the necessity of Jesus’ death from the Roman perspective of Pontius Pilate.
The Roman Perspective, Part 6
In my last post I began to describe Pontius Pilate’s predicament on the Friday morning after Jesus had entered Jerusalem. The problematic prophet had been brought to Pilate by several Jewish leaders who demanded that he be crucified. But, for reasons I outlined previously, Pilate was reticent. Most of all, he didn’t want to incite the crowds who had gathered in Jerusalem for Passover. Silencing Jesus was a fine idea, but, from Pilate’s perspective, it had to be done in a why that protected him from the wrath of the Jewish people.
Pilate’s Decision to Have Jesus Crucified
Pilate tried passing the buck. He told the Jewish leaders to judge Jesus themselves, but they averred that they couldn’t execute him (John 18:31-32). He said, perhaps sarcastically, that they should go ahead and crucify him themselves (John 19:6-7), even though Pilate knew that crucifixion was legal only under Roman authority. At one point during the “trial” of Jesus, Pilate tried to pass the buck to Herod Antipas, who, as Tetrarch over Galilee, had the legal right to put Jesus to death. But Herod didn’t grab the bait. Instead, he used his meeting with Jesus as an occasion to mock him (Luke 23:6-12). (Photo: Nicolaes Maes, “Christ Before Pilate,” c. 1670.)
When the responsibility for Jesus’ fate fell back upon Pilate’s shoulders, he preferred to take the course of least resistance: have Jesus flogged, which would surely silence him for a while, and which, Pilate hoped, would keep the people from going on a rampage. But many of the Jewish leaders, combined with a mob that gathered outside of Pilate’s headquarters, pressed for Jesus’ crucifixion. Three factors seemed to have persuaded Pilate that executing Jesus was the best course of action. First, his reticence to kill Jesus appeared to put his loyalty to the emperor in doubt (John 19:12). Even the slightest appearance of imperial disloyalty could have terminal implications for Pilate. Second, the Jews who had gathered in his courtyard, although a tiny percentage of the current population of Jerusalem, were fervent enough in their desire for Jesus’ death that Pilate believed he could convincingly lay the blame on them. Third, his reticence to crucify Jesus was itself starting to cause a riot, which was the very thing Pilate was attempting to avoid by not executing Jesus (Matt 27:24). So his primary motivation for keeping Jesus alive – maintenance of order – was no longer valid. Jesus had to die.
In sentencing Jesus to death, Pilate revealed himself to be devious, if not spineless. He sent Jesus to the cross. The responsibility for this decision was his – at least from a legal-historical point of view. Yet when announcing Jesus’ fate, Pilate tried to avoid taking responsibility for his action. Symbolically washing his hands in front of the crowd, he said, “I am innocent of this man’s blood” (Matthew 27:24). Of course this wasn’t true. No matter now much others might have urged Pilate to take Jesus’ life, in the end, he and he alone had the authority to make that fateful decision.
The fact that Pilate had Jesus crucified strongly suggests that he saw Jesus as a threat to Roman order. Though not your ordinary brigand or revolutionary, Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God (not Caesar) and accepted adulation as a messianic (kingly) figure. Moreover, even if his answers to Pilate were minimal, Jesus didn’t reject the charge that he claimed to be king of the Jews. So, even though Jesus wasn’t your run-of-the-mill Zealot, he was still the sort of person who was dangerous to Rome, and was therefore worthy of death, at least from the Roman point of view.
Pilate’s legal justification for crucifying Jesus appeared on the sign attached to Jesus’ cross: “The King of the Jews.” The wording and placement of this sign tells us much about Pilate’s ultimate motivation for killing Jesus. On the one hand, Jesus was being crucified because he dared to make a claim to kingship. On the other, by identifying the crucified Jesus as “King of the Jews,” Pilate was mocking Jesus, the Jewish people, and their kingdom aspirations – all in one ironic statement. In a manner consistent with what we know about Pilate from other sources, he was saying, “Here you go, you Jews. Here is your king – beaten to a pulp, powerless, a victim of superior Roman power.” Furthermore, by crucifying Jesus, Pilate also held him up as a persuasive deterrent: “Next time you think about having someone other than Caesar as your king, remember the crucifixion of Jesus, the King of the Jews.”
Why Did Jesus Have to Die? The Roman Perspective: Conclusion
From a Roman perspective, why did Jesus have to die?
• Because he disturbed Roman order.
• Because he spoke seditiously of a coming kingdom other than that of Caesar.
• Because he allowed himself to be called “King of the Jews.”
• Because he made a nuisance of himself at the wrong time (Passover), in the wrong
place (Jerusalem), in the presence of the wrong people (Pilate and the temple
leadership under his command).
• Because his crucifixion would be a powerful deterrent that might keep other Jews from
following in his footsteps.
In my next post I’ll begin to look at the death of Jesus from one Jewish perspective.
One Jewish Perspective, Part 1
Placing This Conversation in Context
Before I proceed to discuss one Jewish perspective on the necessity of Jesus’ death, I must say a bit about the contemporary context for this conversation. For centuries, many Christians hated Jews. Part of the Christians’ justification for their hatred was their belief that “the Jews killed Christ.” Even though Jesus himself had called his followers to love their enemies, somehow the belief that “the Jews killed Christ” justified a very un-Christ-like hatred of all Jews. This sort of twisted reasoning contributed to the unspeakable horror of the Holocaust, in which over six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis.
The ugly history of anti-Semitism makes it difficult to talk objectively about Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus. If one suggests that some Jews were in some way responsible for Jesus’ death, this person runs the risk of being labeled anti-Semitic. When I was in graduate school, I was encouraged to ask all sorts of creative and critical questions about early Christian history. But when it came to the death of Jesus, there was an unspoken rule that prohibited even discussing the possibility of some Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus. The party line was that the Romans killed Jesus for their own reasons and that the early Christians made up the parts of the passion narrative that implicate Jews. The Christians did so, we were told, partly because they weren’t getting along with Jews during the latter half of the first-century A.D., and partly because they wanted to improve their relationship with the Roman Empire. This theory – filled with more holes than Swiss cheese – was something my colleagues and I were not welcome to examine critically. It was simply off limits. The painful history of anti-Semitism required that the history of early Christianity be told in a certain way, whether it actually happened that way or not. (Photo: Anti-Semitic graffiti in Lithuania in 2005.)
Therefore, before I discuss Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus, I must say three things quite clearly:
1. Anti-Semitism is wrong. From a Christian perspective, it is a sin. No matter who was actually responsible for the death of Jesus, there is no excuse for anti-Semitism. It’s something that Christians and all sensible people should oppose.
2. Even if “the Jews” were completely responsible for Jesus’ death (which I’ve already shown to be false, given the involvement of Pontius Pilate), this would in no way justify anti-Semitism today.
3. Even if a Christian considered “the Jews” to be his or her enemies, that Christian would be compelled by the very words of Jesus to love the Jews, not to hate them.
4. Anti-Semitism is alive and well today (or, alive and sick, perhaps). All moral people, including Christians, should reject and oppose it. Anti-Semitism is morally wrong, unjustifiable, and unchristian.
As you can infer from this introduction, I am going to argue that some Jews were involved in the crucifixion of Jesus, and that they believed that Jesus had to die. But, I think it’s historically incorrect to speak of “The Jewish Perspective” on the necessity of Jesus’ death. If we wish to be accurate, we must talk in terms of “One Jewish Perspective” on the question: “Why did Jesus have to die?” I’ll explain what I mean in my next post.
One Jewish Perspective, Part 2
Why “One” Jewish Perspective?
As a young Christian, I had a clear picture of what happened to Jesus in the last week of his life. This picture resulted from my knowledge of the Gospels, and, to a great extent, from images I had seen in Sunday School booklets and filmstrips. My mind had been impressed with scenes of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, of his “trial” before Pilate, and of his being assaulted by Jewish leaders. These images led me to believe that Jerusalem in the time of Jesus was a relatively small town inhabited by a relatively small number of Jews, and that the same Jews who had welcomed Jesus into town as a king on Sunday had turned against him on Friday. From my juvenile viewpoint, “the Jews” of Jerusalem had, as a single group, both hailed Jesus and then condemned him. Since only a few close disciples supported Jesus until the bitter end, it would have seemed appropriate to me to speak of “the” Jewish perspective on why Jesus had to die. (Photo: Jesus on Palm Sunday in a classic film version of his life. For the other side of the story, check out this video from Vintage 21 Church.)
I no longer believe that my youthful picture of Jesus’ last week was historically accurate, though I do believe that the New Testament Gospels provide historically reliable viewpoints on what really happened that week. For one thing, the actual scale of life in Jerusalem was far greater than anything I had imagined. As I explained earlier in this series, it’s likely that the normal population of Jerusalem in the time of Jesus was around 35,000. But during the festival of Passover the population swelled to eight or ten times that number, perhaps even more.
This means, among other things, that a tiny percentage of the overall population of Jerusalem actually welcomed Jesus into the city on Palm Sunday or called for his crucifixion early on Good Friday. Since scholars cannot agree on the precise location of Pilate’s headquarters, we cannot say definitively how many people might have gathered in his courtyard to call for Jesus’ death. This number is probably less than 500, possibly quite a bit less. What this means, therefore, is that something like .2% of the Jews in Jerusalem were demonstrably eager to have Jesus crucified.
But, one might object, perhaps this tiny percentage represented the majority. This objection is unlikely for three reasons:
First, we know from the Gospels that Jesus was, for the most part, very popular among the masses (for example, Matt 4:25; 8:1; 9:8; 12:15; 13:2; 14:14; 15:30; 20:29; 21:8).Second, we also know that the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem who wanted to have Jesus killed hesitated precisely because Jesus was so popular among the masses there (Matt 21:46). Nothing in the Gospel records suggests that this popularity ended magically by Good Friday.
Third, in fact the Gospel records suggest that large numbers of Jews were deeply distressed by the death of Jesus. For example, as Jesus was walking along the Via Dolorosa, Luke tells us that “A great number of the people followed him, and among them were women who were beating their breasts and wailing for him” (Luke 23:27). Then, after Jesus was crucified, the crowds who “saw what had taken place, . . . returned home, beating their breasts” (Luke 24:48). In other words, vast numbers of Jews were horrified by the death of Jesus.
Thus it’s historically accurate to speak, not of “the” Jewish perspective on the necessity of Jesus’ death, but of several diverse Jewish perspectives. It’s quite likely that the majority of Jews in Jerusalem did not want Jesus killed at all. But the perspective that had greatest impact on the fate of Jesus was that of Caiaphas and other principal leaders of Jerusalem. This is the “one” perspective I’ll begin to examine in my next post.
One Jewish Perspective, Part 3
The Perspective of Jewish Leaders in Jerusalem
Although the majority of Jews in Jerusalem may not have wanted Jesus to die, or may have had no opinion either way, some of the most influential Jews did see Jesus’ death as necessary. All four New Testament Gospels testify to the key role of the “chief priests” and other Jewish leaders in the effort to have Jesus crucified. The chief priests included the high priest Caiaphas, who was appointed by Pilate, and other priests who provided leadership, not only for the temple, but also for all religious and civic affairs in Jerusalem. Some other learned and powerful Jewish leaders joined with the chief priests in the effort to silence Jesus once and for all.
Although not providing specific names or titles, the first-century Jewish historian Josephus concurs with what we find in the New Testament. In his Jewish Antiquities, Josephus devotes a short section to the antics of Pontius Pilate. In this context the historian writes that Pilate, “at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us,” had Jesus “condemned to the cross” (Antiquities 18.3.3). Unfortunately Josephus does not explain why these “principal men,” presumably the chief priests and other leaders, had it in for Jesus.
Why did leading Jews in Jerusalem believe it was necessary for Jesus to die? Part of the answer to this question comes from the Gospel of John, in a scene where a group of Jewish leaders was debating the problem of Jesus’ problematic popularity. “If we let him go on like this,” they said, “everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation” (John 11:48). Jesus was stirring up the people with his message of God’s kingdom and with his mighty deeds, and he wasn’t the first to walk down this perilous road. Others had done so before him and the result hadn’t been good for the Jews. Inevitably the Romans swept into Judea with their armies, slaughtering some, crucifying others, and taking still others into slavery. They had no hesitation about destroying an entire city if only some its residents had challenged Roman authority. So it would be logical for Jewish leaders to fear that Jesus might indeed bring down Roman wrath upon both the temple and the nation. (Photo: The ruins of a theatre in Sepphoris in Galilee. Shortly after Jesus was born, a man named Judas led a makeshift militia in a successful assault against the royal palace. Of course Rome didn’t wink at Judas and his gang. Ultimately the Roman army recaptured Sepphoris, taking all of its residents as slaves and burning the city to the ground. (See my book Jesus Revealed, p. 104)
Ruins of the coliseum at Sepphoris
In the midst of this debate about the problem of Jesus, John records the counsel of the high priest, Caiaphas: “You know nothing at all! You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed” (John 11:50). Since Caiaphas did not believe that Jesus fit the job description of God’s messiah, and since he shared with his colleagues the fear of Roman reprisals against the Jews, his argument made sense. Better that Jesus should die than the whole nation be destroyed.
When Caiaphas and his cohort finally captured Jesus and brought him to Pilate so that he might be crucified, their accusations touched upon several ways he was endangering the Jewish people. “We found this man perverting our nation,” they said, “forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king” (Luke 23:2). When Pilate was underwhelmed, they added, “He stirs up the people by teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee where he began even to this place” (Luke 23:5). In other words, Jesus was both undermining orderly Roman rule (forbidding taxes, claiming to be king, stirring up the people) and seducing the Jewish people to abandon their religious commitments (keeping the Sabbath, offering sacrifices in the temple, separating themselves from “sinners”).
Although we Christians may want to argue that these accusations were false, it’s easy to see how, from the perspective of the Jewish leaders, they appeared to be true, dangerously true. Moreover, we find in Jewish sources basic confirmation of what Luke puts upon the lips of the leaders. In the Babylonian Talmud (a fifth-century collection of earlier Jewish oral traditions), we read the following:
There is a tradition: They hanged Yeshu on the Sabbath of the Passover. But for forty days before that a herald went in front of him (crying), “Yeshu is to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and seduced Israel and led them astray from God”. (b. Sanhedrin 43a)
Although the details don’t fit perfectly with the New Testament accounts, the charges against Jesus confirm what we have already seen. Jesus was said to “practice sorcery,” which is how his miracles would have appeared to his opponents, and which explains his ability to arouse the people. He also “seduced Israel and led them astray from God.” How similar this is to the charges in Luke 23, where Jesus was said to have perverted the nation and stirred up the people.
The concerns of Jewish leaders and their desire to get rid of him would probably not have come to fruition except for something Jesus did to provoke their concerted effort to have him crucified. I’ll examine this action in my next post.
One Jewish Perspective, Part 4
The “Crime” of Jesus
My last post in this series focused on the reasons why some Jewish leaders in Jerusalem believed that it was necessary for Jesus to die. The bottom line? He was a threat to their conception of faith and national life, indeed, to the very existence of the Jewish people. If left unchecked, Jesus would either pervert the Jewish nation with his peculiar notions of the kingdom of God, or he would bring down the wrath of Rome upon Judea, leading to its destruction. Either way, Jesus needed to be taken out of the game – permanently.
The concerns of the Jewish leaders, however pressing they might have been, would probably not have been enough to bring about Jesus’ execution except for something Jesus himself did, something shocking, unexpected, and utterly unacceptable from the perspective of the Jewish leaders. I’m speaking of his activity in the temple, that which Christians call “the cleansing of the temple.” Here’s Mark’s account of this scandalous action:
Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those who sold doves; and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. He was teaching and saying, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.” (Mark 11:15-17)
How did the Jewish leaders respond to Jesus’ action? “And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him” (Mark 11:18).
Why was Jesus’ behavior in the temple worthy of death?
First of all, he was suggesting that the current state of the temple was unacceptable and that the temple leadership – the chief priests – were unworthy of respect. They were like a bunch of robbers.
Model of the temple in Jerusalem. Photo with permission of holylandphotos.org.
Second, Jesus actually prohibited the crucial function of the temple: the offering of sacrifices. From the point of view of the priests, he was keeping the Jewish people from worshipping God in the way God had prescribed – a serious if not a capital offense.
Third, Jesus’ activity in the temple was consistent with his earlier actions, whereby he implied that the temple was no longer necessary. If Jesus himself could forgive sins (Mark 2:1-12), then why bother with the temple? Thus Jesus was saying to a temple-centered religion: The very center of your relationship with God is wrong. Such a critique would not be taken lightly by those who embraced a temple-centered Judaism.
But it wasn’t only what Jesus did in the temple that provoked a negative response from the leaders, but also what he said. You see, by referring to the temple as a “den of robbers,” Jesus was doing far more than insulting the chief priests. He was actually quoting from the prophet Jeremiah. In Jeremiah 7, the prophet condemned the tendency of Israel to put their faith in the existence of the temple. Many in Jeremiah’s day believed that they could do all sorts of evil deeds without fear of punishment because God’s temple was in their midst. The temple was their spiritual safety net, so to speak. But God was neither fooled nor pleased. So, through Jeremiah the Lord prophesied,
Here you are, trusting in deceptive words to no avail. Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Baal, and go after other gods that you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, “We are safe!” – only to go on doing all these abominations? Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your sight? . . . And now, because you have done all these things, says the LORD, . . . therefore I will do to the house that is called by my name . . . just what I did to Shiloh. (Jer 7:8-14)
And what did the Lord do to Shiloh? He destroyed it and the tabernacle it once housed (Psalm 78:60).
In the day of Jeremiah, the people had turned the temple into a “den of robbers,” a place of supposed safety for those who did evil deeds out in the world. For this reason, God promised to destroy the temple, which he did in 586 B.C. Similarly, by quoting from Jeremiah 7 as he overturned the tables in the temple, Jesus implied that the same judgment applied in his day. Those who took refuge in the temple could not presume to be safe. God was about to destroy the temple because of the sin of the people, even as he had done to Shiloh and to the first temple in Jerusalem.
Thus Jesus’ action in the temple, combined with his words, not only insulted and upset the chief priests, but also conveyed God’s judgment upon the temple itself. This crime against the temple could not be tolerated, as far as its leaders were concerned. Jesus, the blasphemous criminal, deserved, not only to be silenced, but also to die. In my next post I’ll examine two fascinating parallels that will help us to see that the Jewish leaders who condemned Jesus were acting in ways fully consistent with their predecessors and successors. Right or wrong, they were doing exactly what Jewish leaders in their position had done and would do again. They thought they were defending God’s temple and, indeed, God himself.
One Jewish Perspective, Part 5
Jewish Leaders Respond to Offenses Against the Temple
In my last post, I suggested that one of the major causes of Jesus’ death was his “cleansing” of the temple. By interrupting the sacrificial system and by quoting Jeremiah’s own condemnation of the temple, Jesus was threatening the very core of Judaism in his day. In the perspective of the Jewish leaders, this would have been blasphemy – speaking against God himself.
For those whose experience and viewpoint is far removed from that of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, it may seem that their intended punishment simply doesn’t fit the crime. But, if we look for historical parallels, we find two incidents in which other leaders acted much as did Caiaphas and his associates when dealing with Jesus.
Rembrandt van Rijn, "Jeremiah Lamenting the Destruction of Jerusalam," 1630
The first example comes from the ministry of Jeremiah, some 600 years before Jesus. The Lord told Jeremiah to stand in the Jerusalem temple and speak the following:
“If you will not listen to me, to walk in my law that I have set before you, and to heed the words of my servants the prophets whom I send to you urgently – though you have not heeded – then I will make this house like Shiloh, and I will make this city a curse for all the nations of the earth” (Jeremiah 26:4-6).
What response did this prophecy spark in the Jewish leaders and others? Sorrow? Repentance? Hardly! In fact, here’s what happened:
And when Jeremiah had finished speaking all that the LORD had commanded him to speak to all the people, then the priests and the prophets and all the people laid hold of him, saying, “You shall die!” (Jeremiah 26:8)
There it is, the same pattern we see in the last days of Jesus: Speak judgment on the temple and the leaders will believe that you need to die. In the case of Jeremiah, however, he insisted that he was only passing on God’s own message, so the people spared his life (Jer 26:12-16).
Now jump forward in history more than six centuries, to an incident that occurred about thirty years after the death of Jesus. Curiously enough, this incident involved another man named Jesus, son of Ananus (Hananiah), who came to Jerusalem during a feast an began to cry out “against Jerusalem and the holy house.” According to the Jewish historian Josephus, Jesus’ persistent proclamation of judgment on the temple and city offended “certain of the most eminent among the populace,” which is to say, the leaders of Jerusalem. So, at first they beat Jesus severely. But when this didn’t shut him up, they brought Jesus to the Roman procurator “where he was whipped [flogged] till his bones were laid bare.” When even this didn’t silence Jesus, the procurator dismissed this Jesus as a madman and a nuisance. (The story of this Jesus can be found in Josephus’s Jewish War, 6.5.3.)
In this case of Jesus ben Hananiah, the Jewish leaders seem not to have pressed for his crucifixion. Of course, this Jesus didn’t pose the same threat as Jesus of Nazareth once did, nor did he do anything resembling the cleansing of the temple. Yet, merely by proclaiming God’s judgment on the temple, Jesus son of Ananus earned several beatings, including what must have been an almost fatal Roman flogging. And, like Jesus of Nazareth, the Jewish leaders dealt with him, first on their own and then by handing him over to the Roman governor.
The experiences of Jeremiah and Jesus ben Hananiah, though different in detail and time period, nevertheless illustrate how Jewish leaders were apt to deal with those who spoke against the temple. They were worthy of severe punishment, if not death. And when the Jewish leaders no longer had the authority to execute someone, they would turn him over to the Roman governor. Thus the actions of Caiaphas and his associates in response to the problem of Jesus of Nazareth reflect the same commitments and tendencies of similar leaders in similar positions. This greatly increases the likelihood that the historical scenario I have been proposing with respect to Jesus of Nazareth is, in fact, accurate.
In my next post I’ll sum up what we have learned about “one” Jewish perspective on the necessity of Jesus’ death.
One Jewish Perspective, Part 6
Summing Up One Jewish Perspective
In the last five posts I’ve been examining “one” Jewish perspective on the necessity of Jesus’ death. Let me briefly summarize my findings, adding some observations along the way.
1. It’s more accurate to speak of “one” Jewish perspective on the necessity of Jesus’ death than to speak of “the” Jewish perspective because not all Jews agreed with the viewpoint of those who conspired to have Jesus crucified. Only a tiny percentage of Jews in Jerusalem were actually involved in the effort to persuade Pilate to execute Jesus. Moreover, the New Testament Gospels attest to the widespread popularity of Jesus among his Jewish contemporaries. “A great number” of those in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus’ death were horrified by what had happened to him (Luke 23:27). Thus, if anything, the numerically dominant Jewish perspective would have supported Jesus. But those who held power in Jerusalem we able to do what the masses would not have wanted.
2. Some of the leading Jews in Jerusalem, including Caiaphas, the High Priest, sought to have Jesus crucified. Evidence for this comes not only from all four New Testament Gospels, but also from the Jewish historian Josephus.
3. The Jewish leaders who sought to have Jesus crucified believed that his death was necessary for the following reasons:
a. By stirring up the people, Jesus was threatening the peace and life of the Jewish people, thus increasing the likelihood that Rome would destroy both Jerusalem and the temple. The death of Jesus would be preferable to the destruction of the nation.
b. Jesus “seduced Israel and led them astray from God” (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a). His message and ministry lessened the people’s commitment to living out their Judaism in the way approved of by the Jewish leaders (priests, Pharisees).
c. Jesus interrupted the orderly system of sacrifices in the Jerusalem temple, speaking against the temple and its leaders, thus opposing not only the core of Judaism, but God himself. Jesus’ quotation from Jeremiah 7 (“den of robbers”) combined with other things he had said during his ministry clarified his condemnation of the temple – a blasphemous offense. Moreover, he insisted that God was on his side, thus adding blasphemy to blasphemy.
d. Jesus presented himself as the Messiah, the one anointed by God to bring divine salvation to Israel. But he failed to do what the Messiah was supposed to do, notably, lead a successful revolt against Rome. Instead, Jesus turned his judgment against God’s own temple. Thus Jesus was a false messiah. This fact alone might not have warranted his crucifixion. But, when combined with his other offenses, his false claim to messiahship increased further the chances that his actions would bring devastation upon Judea.
4. The efforts of Jewish leaders to silence Jesus by physical violence were consistent with what other Jewish leaders did in similar situations (vs. the prophet Jeremiah in Jer 26 and vs. Jesus ben Hananiah in Josephus, Jewish War, 6.5.3). This consistency greatly increases the probability that the Gospel accounts accurately portray the role of Jewish leaders. Caiaphas and company did exactly what Jewish leaders in their position thought they had to do when someone insulted or threatened the temple.
Implications for the Current Debate
Given this picture of “one” Jewish perspective on the necessity of Jesus’ death, I want to draw out two implications.
First, it is historically irresponsible to say, “The Jews killed Christ.” Yes, I’m aware that the Gospel of John uses “the Jews” in a way that seems to lay blame for Jesus’ death upon “the Jews.” But, when read in context, “the Jews” means “some Jewish leaders.” Ultimate and legal blame for Jesus’ death fell upon the shoulders of Pontius Pilate, no matter how he might have tried to wriggle out of it. Moreover, many, and quite probably the vast majority of Jews in the time of Jesus, did not want him killed, and were horrified when it happened. Given the tragic history of Christian anti-Semitism, we Christians must speak carefully and accurately about Jewish involvement in his death. The truth: some influential Jews believed Jesus had to die and sought to convince Pilate to crucify him.
Second, it is historically irresponsible to deny all Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus. Some scholars, no doubt responding to the horrors of anti-Semitism, have applied their critical scalpels to the New Testament records, cutting from them any implication of Jewish complicity in the death of Jesus. In their surgery, however, they bleed historical probability to death. In fact two ancient Jewish sources, Josephus and the Talmud, indicate that some Jews were involved in the death of Jesus and help us to understand why they would have been. Plus, the picture of Caiaphas and his associates in the Gospels makes historical and logical sense. These leaders were protecting that which they believed to be essential, including both the temple and their own civic/religious position. The actions of other leaders in similar situations confirm the conclusion that the New Testament Gospels paint an historical reliable picture of Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus.
Finally, there was another Jewish perspective on the necessity of Jesus’ death, a perspective I haven’t yet mentioned. It was the most important Jewish perspective of all, that of Jesus himself. To the question of why Jesus believed he had to die I’ll turn in my next post in this series.
I
In
I
posted August 4, 2008 at 11:47 am
Rev. Roberts, Thanks again of another contemplative issue & post! Many of us can relate to this post especially the last 2 paragraphs. We are super looking forward to your next post.. Have a nice day & week. Thanks Again & GOD BLESS
posted August 4, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Dr. Roberts, thanks again for a very thoughtful and thought-provoking post. I am particularly moved by your grounding in Christ and not a denomination. Thank you.
I take your comment “…that their arguments actually point to reunion with Rome.”, to mean a devotion to what has been called sola ecclesia as opposed to sola scriptura. I don’t think you mean it leads to Roman theology, in general. Perhaps you can expand on that in your next post.
Best wishes for your continued success!
posted August 4, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Dr. Roberts – once again I am left thinking deeper thoughts after reading one of your posts. My wife and I have been visiting a PC(USA) for the past three months after leaving our PCA church home of 7 years. There are issues we still need to reconcile with our own views before applying for membership in this new church home. However, your synopsis of this debate is giving me a bit of reassurance that I would not be crazy to join this family at this point in time.
posted August 4, 2008 at 3:59 pm
You wrote: “It’s hard to find speaking the truth with bitterness and meanness is Scripture, even though some of my fellows do this very thing.”
You might enjoy this post by John Mark Reynolds:
http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2008/01/28/nasty-like-jesus-use-of-tough-rhetoric-in-christianity/
As many here have done, I commend your gracious attitude and approach and think you for your work. We’re praying for you, for the PC(USA), and for the Church, all the while saying, “God be merciful to me a sinner.”
posted August 4, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Mark,
Much of the “future of the PC(USA)” conversation occurring on your blog (especially in the comments) seems to revolve around the question of what individual congregations are to do in response to the GA. Often, it is assumed that “evangelical congregations” will be discussing the possibility of leaving the denomination to the “liberal congregations”. However, this seems to treat congregations as monolithic entities with all members being of one accord. This is probably the case only in the more extreme situations; in reality, I’d guess that the membership of any given congregation is just as mixed in their responses to this issue as the larger denomination is.
I’m hoping at some point you’ll discuss the dilemma faced by congregations that are split down the middle, as opposed to having a clear majority on one side or the other.
Thanks for your continued efforts to bring some clarity and reasoned discussion to this potentially confusing and contentious issue.
posted August 4, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Mark,
I’ve been thnking about your blog all day. In directly you might be saying that it doesn’t matter what part (denomination) of the “body” (church) you belong to. It gives me some motivation to maybe look beyond this denomination that I’ve been a part of for over 50 years. I’ve been looking for the answer to the question “Should I go or stay”…. we are all part of the larger church, so why not let the churches leave who want to serve Christ in another part.
You end by saying we should find mission as our central focus. My problem with this denomination is that I don’t quite agree with the
“mission” of it’s leadership any more.
It is harder to be “Passionate Spiritually”
in this denimination.
posted August 4, 2008 at 10:19 pm
I used to think that my duty was to stay engaged in this battle until my side prevailed, and the other side was “converted” to my way of thinking. I have changed my mind about that. There will be no winner in this battle.
I believe we are locked in a theological impasse that cannot be resolved, no matter how badly we want things to work out. We are deeply divided over doctrinal issues that spring from vastly different world views. Try as we might, we will never be able to reconcile these differences.
Over the course of this debate, I have come to greatly respect the other side, and I now understand much more about their positions on specific issues. And they are arguing with just as much integrity and passion as I am. I still believe they are wrong, but I no longer consider it my duty to “correct” them. I am not God, and I can’t pretend to be able to sort it all out.
I pray that those who disagree with me have developed the same respect for my positions that I have developed for theirs. Although we can never agree on these things, we can always have fellowship together as brothers and sisters in Christ.
Unfortunately, we cannot share denominational bonds. Some of the most important work that denominations do is to set apart and ordain ministers and officers to lead people in mission. If we disagree on ordination standards we have very little basis upon which to build a life together.
Denominations are not sacred. Christian denominations are morally neutral. They exist to enable like-minded bodies of believers with similar belief sets, philosophies, religious practices and polity preferences to share resources in pursuit of a common mission. There is no biblical mandate for their existance, but neither is there a prohibition against them. They are HUMAN inventions born in religious freedom, in the search for truth and in the pursuit of mission. The strengths inherent in shared resources, unifying doctrinal beliefs and common fellowship are helpful as each constituency of believers seeks to identify and pursue its own unique mission in the world.
Sometimes, however, denominational bonds become an impediment to mission as they yoke together people whose doctrinal differences overwhelm their capacity to work together on specific matters of theological significance, and the political apparatus of the denomination is unable to bridge the gap. Such is the case with the PC(USA) today.
Given that, is there a way we can recognize our differences and work together toward two new, more functional denominations?
Or does one side have to win?
posted August 4, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Mark,
I think we inevitably suffer, in times of crisis, from the confusion of being a denomination. A denomination may very well be like a family, especially for those of us raised in one. But a denomination is a historical, theological, organizational construct, and not really a biblical one.
If we are a “family”, what biblical image of the church would match this except Israel. But withdrawal from one’s family in Israel, even if the aim is to promote a new tribe is problematic.
The only other image to match that of the picture of Israel is the faithful remnant, but the continuing faithfulness of any of the sequence of “remnants” of Israel, through history, also presents difficulties.
Historically the founders of “denominations” have ended to take the great leap of calling the old arrangement “Babylon” and saying, “Come out of her.” This is largely the argument today.
I think the biblical image that best regulates an entity whose definition is problematic, is the image of “neighbor”. The question we are called upon to answer, with this image, is: “Who is my neighbor?” We find ourselves tempted to “dis-neighbor” ourselves from certain people who are, or have become, unsatisfactory in that respect, in our view.
A more general image is the one we are obliged to give to anyone. And that image is “Christ”. The standing instruction with this image is, “Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brethren, you have done it to me.” Why should we treat any church family, especially the one closest to us (the one we are in), in any lesser way?
I hate this debate, as I think we all do, and I hope, Mark, that you will be supported in your reflections by all our prayers for the healing of God’s people.
posted August 5, 2008 at 4:08 am
Denominations are the great Protestant project… Allowing like minded churches to affiliate and accomplish something together that they could not do all by themselves. They are “apostolic” in nature, assuring that there is a common faith and practice “in all the churches.”
Most Presbyterian denominations allow individual churches to leave with some sequential congregational votes — peace be with you! But the PCUSA will take a church to court if they want to leave.
Who made this rule, and how is it reconciled with 1 Cor. 6?
Sorry if I missed the presentation on this if covered.
posted August 5, 2008 at 10:03 am
Below is a devotional from A.W Tozer (circa 1960). Very apropos don’t you think!
The Church, The Major Decision:
“There is a great decision that every denomination has to make sometime in the development of its history. Every church also has to make it either at its beginning or a little later–usually a little later. Eventually every board is faced with the decision and has to keep making it, not by one great decision made once for all, but by a series of little decisions adding up to one great big one. Every pastor has to face it and keep renewing his decision on his knees before God. Finally, every church member, every evangelist, every Christian has to make this decision. It is a matter of judgment upon that denomination, that church, that board, that pastor,that leader and upon their descendants and spiritual children.
The question is this: Shall we modify the truth in doctrine or practice to gain more adherents? Or shall we preserve the truth in doctrine and practice and take the consequences?
A commitment to preserving the truth and practice of the church is what separates me from a great many people who are perhaps far greater than I am in ability. This is my conviction, long held and deeply confirmed by a knowledge of the fact that modern gospel churches, almost without exception, have decided to modify the truth and practice a little in order to have more adherents and get along better. We’re under constant pressure to have more adherents, more members, more numbers. The emphasis today is on growth, bigness, size,and success.
Lord God help me never to modify or compromise to achieve that, but to tenaciously hold fast to my core beliefs and priorities. Amen”
A.W Tozer
posted August 5, 2008 at 3:32 pm
To KWK: Further to your question, I wonder how many people just don’t know, either because they haven’t really thought about it or because they are confused by the issues. And how many don’t care, they just want to be left alone so they can enjoy the music and fellowship with their friends in “their” church. And how many are easily led one way or the other by their pastor or others. And how many just wish everyone would stop arguing and get on with more important things. If we added all of these people together we might find the true majority of the church.
posted August 5, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Regarding KWK’s comment, I’m not sure why it’s always assumed the conservative churches will be the ones to “leave.” I think you could make a good argument that had the conservative churches not done so years ago, we wouldn’t be in such a mess today. The following seems a good strategy to me:
1) Let the presbyteries vote how they will as before. Usually this means the ordination standards will be upheld, although I guess there’s nothing that can be done about the AIs.
2) Make necessary changes to allow the minority to leave with their property. A majority vote of a congregation determines its position…which in turn determines the property of presbyteries, synods, etc. and the institutions they sponsor.
3) Property agreements should include the following: If property is ever sold by either of the two resulting denominations, the other denomination has first right of purchase, at (Fair Market Value at Time of Sale)-1/2(Fair Market Value at Time of Split). This is more than fair in recognizing the funds devoted by the two sides.
While I don’t believe conservative churches should up and leave, it’s becoming clear that they must do something. Otherwise, today’s moderates will just be tomorrow’s conservatives, and we’ll continue along a path of poor stewardship – leaving our money and resources in the hands of those who would waste it on aggressive social engineering projects (for instance, on legal battles against churches who choose to leave – how wasteful! how absurd!).
I like my plan best. That way the conservative churches will be able to get a deal on abandoned liberal church property in what, 40 years? Isn’t that the date the PC(USA) flatlines at its current rate of decline?
posted August 5, 2008 at 6:37 pm
As a Catholic, it’s not always easy to relate immediately with the issues faced by some of my Protestant brothers and sisters. It takes some effort since we often approach our common faith from different points of reference and perhaps view it through a different set of lenses. I’m sure many Protestants could say the same about my faith.
For instance, the distinction made in this post between church affiliation (i.e., denomination) and The Church (i.e., what Christ established). As Mark points out, for Catholics there is no distinction since we believe Christ established one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. We would reject the notion that this Church (singular) could at one and the same time teach different doctrines and operate under the guidance of distinct authoritative bodies (denominations), as we see is the case within Protestantism.
For just as Mark hints at an end to the PCUSA (the theme of this 13 post series) over the doctrinal division that exists within the Presbyterian communion on the issue of homosexuality, neither can Christ’s Body — the Church — function where its individual members are divided and operate under their own interpretations of Sacred Scripture, apart from Sacred Tradition and the authority of those who succeeded the twelve.
Who can believe that Christ intended his church to be speaking with 30,000 conflicting voices?
Christianity has gone from the witness of Pentecost, where each heard the apostles speaking in their own tongue and with one voice, to a sort of modern-day Babylon where each speaks in a different tongue, verging on the point of chaos. Consider: does Christianity teach baptism is necessary for salvation? how is Christ present in the eucharist? do Christians believe once saved always saved? is divorce permissible? is contraception permissible? is abortion permissible? …are homosexual ordinations permissible?
Ask any random sampling of self-proclaimed Christians — members of Christ’s Church — and you will get contradicting answers. Most would probably cite the Bible as supportive of their beliefs.
This cannot be how it was intended when Our Blessed Lord spoke of building his Church.
Where is Christ’s Church? As a Catholic, I have to side with Ambrose of Milan, an early church father:
“It is to Peter that He says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church’ (Matthew 16:18). Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but life eternal.” St. Ambrose of Milan, “Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David” c. 389 A.D
posted August 5, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. But I have to disagree with one of your assumptions upon which your conclusion is founded. You are claiming that those who adhere to theological liberalism are in fact Christians. I would challenge you on that. Point for point on everything that you or I would consider essential for a Christian to believe is denied by the theological religion and system that is referred to as liberalism or progressivism.
They deny the physical bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ…they deny the substitutionary atonement of Jesus on the Cross, thus completely reinterpreting the sacraments…more often than not theological liberalism is more pan(en)theistic and agnostic than it is theistic…they deny the physical bodily return of Jesus Christ, etc…
We are not talking about people who might hold more progressive social views (although they do), but rather leaders who deny core tenets of the Christian faith. Ultimately these problems cut much deeper than the issue of the day (homosexual acts), but rather undermines or completely oblitherates every essential belief of historic orthodox protestantism. And yet, we are all intimately linked together in this denominational structure.
posted August 6, 2008 at 2:18 am
Thank you, Abel, for making this papist feel welcome to comment.
I can understand your disagreement with my premise that liberal Christians are in fact Christian. I guess it depends on how one defines a Christian. I think the fairest definition would have to be someone who tries to follow the teachings of Christ. (Remember, this is coming from someone who believes Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus! :-O )
That doesn’t mean I think subscribers to a liberal theology are good Christians. I think quite the opposite. But more to the point (above that of how one defines a Christian), there are plenty of doctrinal disagreements among Evangelical protestants (presumably we would agree they are members of the church). Infant baptism, the necessity of baptism, the eucharist (symbolic or something more?), and the assurance of salvation to name just four. These are hardly non-trivial points of doctrine.
Bring Orthodox/Catholic Christians into the picture and the list of disagreements expands further into the primacy/authority of Peter, the communion of saints, the role of Our Lord’s mother and so on.
So even if we limit ourselves to the differences among “Christians” the problem I’m trying to highlight here does not go away. Namely, by what authority do we teach/believe these things?
Allow me to preempt a bit here and say that I don’t think “the Bible” is a very good answer for at least three reasons: (1) The Bible makes no such claim of sufficiency, (2) in practice Sola Scriptura has yielded the very problem we’re now trying to solve and (3) the Bible actually warns Christians of the danger in being misled by a mistaken interpretation of this passage or that.
“In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.” -2 Peter 3:16
Of the thousands of conflicting interpretations, each will say, ‘Surely this is the proper understanding,’ and yet reason tells us that at least all but one of them are, in the words of St. Peter, “distorted.”
Are we so confident in our personal interpretation as to be sure it is not in fact a distortion of the true meaning; that it is not standing in the way, so to speak, between ourselves and Christ?
So far as I can tell, the problem I’ve raised remains for serious Protestants. For Catholics (who reject Martin Luther’s doctrine of Sola Scriptura) there is no problem at all. We trust in the voice and authority of the Church which Paul describes as the “pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Tim 3:15)
posted August 6, 2008 at 4:47 am
Tom,
Listen, Presbyterians share and cherish an historic, catholic and apostolic faith. I don’t understand this Rome-antic notion that the orthodox view of Christian history is the sole property of a single denominational expression of the holy catholic (universal) church. Your beautiful illustration of Peter’s Spirit inspired preaching is soon followed with complaints in the church regarding how to care for widows. The New Testament (and all of Israel’s history for that matter) is a documentation of God’s people being in continual conflict and disagreement with at least someone all the time (except for those prophetic passages of ‘lamb and wolf’…) — and yet a remnant is always preserved. But they are never preserved by a single office holder (save Christ, who is our prophet, priest, and King!) The glory of the true church is that we would be one because of Christ’s prayer and the Spirit’s power. To suggest otherwise would negate all of John 13-17 (Acts 1, and more) where Jesus said he would be leaving the world, but sending the paraclete — NOT an earthly individual to speak authoritatively to the church! (BTW, the RCC is not as monolithic as often portrayed, my apologies to Peter!)
We are one when by the Word and Spirit, many lead and many follow by the Word and Spirit.
I’d prefer at this point not to mention all the things which divide us (I’ll just pray for a more Presbyterian Pope =O)
“Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): “Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning.” – Thomas Aquinas.
posted August 6, 2008 at 5:01 pm
RevK,
The reason I submit that the universal church is expressed by a single ‘denomination’ united in doctrine and belief is because Christ spoke of building *one* Church. Singular.
Of his Church he said, “He who hears you, hears me. He who rejects you, rejects me.” (Lk 10:16)
Question: Which church is he referencing? Is it when we hear the Presbyterian Church speaking that we can be sure we’re hearing Christ? And supposing I reject the Presbyterian Church as authoritative — say on the grounds of their acceptance of homosexual acts — am I rejecting Christ?
Or again, take Matthew 18:15-17.
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.”
Tell the church? Which church shall we go to? It cannot be a vague conglomeration of ‘believers’ (split on doctrine) since there would be no clear answer to this question. Jesus said his Church would be “the light of the world.” He then noted that “a city set on a hill cannot be hid” (Mt 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization — one that you could take your brother to if he sins against you. So which church is it?
In your post you make the argument that Jesus would not have ‘an earthly individual’ speak authoritatively to the church. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude excepted, of course.
I’m not making the case that the authority of the Pope supercedes the New Testament. I’m trying to point out the error of making rash statements in an attempt to discredit the authority of an ‘earthly individual’ with whom you disagree.
You might respond that the Gospel writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit — and you would be right. But Catholics make a similar (but more limitted) claim about doctrinal pronouncements of Peter’s successor: he is protected by God against teaching error. This belief follows from Our Lord’s promise in John 16:13, “Yet when the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all truth.” (To say nothing of the authority conferred in Matthew 16:18, or his parting words in John 21:15 and following, or the authority Peter clearly exercised in Acts 15.)
Perhaps even more persuasive, listen to the astonishment we can hear in Christ’s voice in the passage I quoted from Matthew 18: “If he refuses to listen *even to the church*…”
He confers authority on his church to govern, teach and sanctify. He gives the keys of the kingdom to Peter — a deeply symbolic act of transferring authority. All of which explains why Paul refers to *the church* as the “pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Tim 3:15)
And it only makes sense as the Church codified Sacred Scripture (around 387 A.D.) and not the other way round.
You said, “We are one when by the Word and Spirit, many lead and many follow by the Word and Spirit.”
I’m not sure I completely understand what you’re saying here, but it sounds like you are begging the question.
The problem I’m trying highlight here is that someone who rejects “an earthly individual’s” authority to interpret Scripture or guide the Church necessarily declares *himself* that authority. What does it mean to “lead and…follow by the Word and Spirit”?
In the end, it only means what RevK discerns the Word and the Spirit to mean. In our attempt to simply strip the pope of his mitre we find that we have placed it on our own head.
This is the fruit of Sola Scriptura.
posted August 6, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Not that this proves anything, but I was interested to learn, recently, the origin of the saying “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It was the response of Lord Acton, a committed Roman Catholic, to the recently-formalized doctrine of Papal infallibility (1870).
posted August 7, 2008 at 1:50 am
And, in spite of his reservations, he regarded “communion with Rome as dearer than life”.
Not that it proves anything.
posted August 7, 2008 at 4:51 am
Dearest Tom,
…and the fruit of the Roman Catholic Church is Protestant Reformations!
Although the Greek word, ekklesia, is singular, it is defined as an “assembly (a grouping of people, ‘plural’).”
To answer your question: I think we both know that Christ’s church is made up of the flock he shepherds, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.” (Jn. 10:27,28) However, I also know that some sheep need more attention from the shepherd! (Luke 15:1-7)
The Presbyterian church is not THE authority, Christ is. The Presbyterian confession makes it clear that not every church lives up to the standards of the shepherd, “…Particular churches, which are members of this catholic church, are more or less pure to the extent to which the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, the ordinances are administered, and public worship is performed more or less purely in them.” (WCF 25.4)
I agree with you that it is valid to reject the authority of a church on the grounds of their acceptance of homosexual acts, just as we should reject any church for not permitting their pastor’s to marry.
I also heartily recommend Dr. Roberts’ series on the church: http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/whatisachurch.htm
I appreciate your wonderful references to the Scriptures and that you are, “… not making the case that the authority of the Pope supercedes the New Testament.” But to expound on these selected passages at length, I think, is beyond the privilege of this blog. We just have different approaches to interpretation, and find different traditions by which to support them. I prefer the analogy of faith, you may prefer another tradition.
I DO AGREE strongly that there should be some ecclesiastical conversation between various churches. If an individual seeks membership in our fellowship because he disagrees with his former church’s exercise of Matthew 18 upon him, it is my duty as a churchman to uphold the proper protocols of church discipline. This makes us “the church.” (Although more importantly would be our shared evangelism of, service to, and prayer for the communities in which we reside.)
I’ll plainly state again, I believe in an historic and apostolic faith. I do not reject all “human authority” to arrive at my convictions. In concert, I reference many voices possessing wisdom, experience, and education beyond my own. This is the whole point of the council of Acts 15! Peter wasn’t the only one with input there! An assembly of authorities arrived at a “Spirit inspired decision” based upon an apostolic interpretation of the word in light of the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
However, you have certainly identified a blatant reality. Every Christian, to some degree, is an “(insert your name here) Christian.” This happens in every church. I know that not every parishioner of my church holds the same eschatological framework I do, or has the same convictions about smoking and drinking, or will vote as I do… this can go on and on… However, we DO have the 10 commandments and we do have the ancient creeds that keep us together in the church (Obviously, there is some fine tuning to get to our tradition that sets us apart as a Presbyterian church; but I’m overdoing it here…)
I heard a broadcast of a priest making an incredible presentation while debating a protestant pastor. At the end of the debate, I was in greater agreement with that priest than I was with the pastor. I actually found that priest’s email address to send him an encouraging note, only to find that he was forced to resign. Why? I think he was too controversial for the RCC. He was an “(insert your name here) RC;” just as I am a “RevK Presbyterian.” I admit that! But a I’m a Christian (first) who is happy to be in conversation with a priest and a blogging Presbyterian who each belong to churches that I would never join – But I pray for peace between us (Lk. 10:6).
Last point on the word and Spirit: If an unregenerate man was all alone on a desert island, and a Bible washed ashore; what kind of Christian would he become? Could he become a justified believer, all alone, simply by the word and the Spirit? Could this man be saved without any knowledge of church history, church tradition, canon law, or access to the ‘sacraments?’
MY Christian conviction says, “YES.” He could be a Christian even though he was not an (insert your denomination here)! And all alone on that island, he would be a member of the Church!
posted August 7, 2008 at 12:40 pm
“…and the fruit of the Roman Catholic Church is Protestant Reformations!”
Not sure what that says about the RCC, or about Protestants for that matter.
Hmm. I suppose the argument could be made…
“Although the Greek word, ekklesia, is singular, it is defined as an “assembly (a grouping of people, ‘plural’).””
Well, sure. I’m not making the case that the Church should be comprised of only one individual. I’m saying that the ekklesia should be one in doctrine and understanding. Christendom today is most certainly not, largely as a result of the belief that Scripture alone is sufficient for teaching, guiding and understanding. (A belief, ironically, not found in the pages of the Bible; a man-made belief/tradition, if you will.)
“I think we both know that Christ’s church is made up of the flock he shepherds, ‘My sheep hear my voice, and I know them…’”
Right. But the Shepherd is no longer walking among us. He is still the Shepherd; he is still the High Priest and head of his body, the Church. But he is in Heaven. And knowing full well he was not going to be walking among us forever as a man-God he promised not to “leave us orphans” (Jn 14:18-19). Just before ascending to Heaven he has the intimate, departing conversation with Peter and says:
“Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, “Feed my sheep.” (Jn 21:15-17)
Tending the Shepherd’s sheep was Simon-Peter’s charge. That’s why Catholics look to Peter, and refer to him as, the Vicar of Christ. Peter is not the Christ. But he acts in the place of Christ here on earth. And he does so not because he seeks “absolute power” — he does so because that is precisely what Christ has asked of him…three times.
“I agree with you that it is valid to reject the authority of a church on the grounds of their acceptance of homosexual acts, just as we should reject any church for not permitting their pastor’s to marry.”
Ah. I guess both of our churches are out then.
I can easily find scripture verses condemning homosexual behavior. Can you tell me where I can find similar verses condemning the evil of a celibate priesthood?
[As an aside, celibacy is a discipline (not a doctrine) in the Catholic Church. Since it is only a discipline, it could conceivably change at any time. However, as Christ chose a life of celibacy it seemed fitting to the Church that those who share in his priesthood ought to do likewise as they seek to conform their lives ever more closely to that of the one, High Priest. There are prudential reasons as well, of course. A celibate priest can direct his undivided attention to his parishoners; a married priest will have two families to care and attend to: his wife/kids and the spiritual family God has entrusted to his care. And of course there's the financial aspect.]
“I appreciate your wonderful references to the Scriptures and that you are, “… not making the case that the authority of the Pope supercedes the New Testament.””
Thanks!
“But to expound on these selected passages at length, I think, is beyond the privilege of this blog.”
I think you’re right. I hope I haven’t been too much of a pesky gnat (or worse!) for Mark.
“This is the whole point of the council of Acts 15! Peter wasn’t the only one with input there!”
No, but he was the one who authoritatively made the decision. No one questioned his authority, and this authority was widely accepted in the early Church until the schism with the Orthodox (who, after 1,000 years of bitterness in very recent years have been growing much closer to reunion Rome) and the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century.
“If an unregenerate man was all alone on a desert island, and a Bible washed ashore; what kind of Christian would he become?”
I have no idea. He might interpret Scripture as a Fundamentalist would, or perhaps as a liberal Christian might, or as a Catholic, or he might find it unconvincing altogether. I really don’t know. There’s a good chance he would have something like the response of the Ethiopian eunuch reading Isaiah in his chariot:
“Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” (Acts 8:30-31)
“Could [the man on an island] become a justified believer, all alone, simply by the word and the Spirit? Could this man be saved without any knowledge of church history, church tradition, canon law, or access to the ’sacraments?’”
The Catholic Church teaches that, “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation.”
posted August 9, 2008 at 4:47 pm
I believe Adel (post #14) is on target in challenging the assumption that progressives are Christians. I am sure some hold to essential beliefs but many progressives I know and read do not.
I think another weakness in what you (Mark) have written so far is a failure to address what will happen when the progressives are able to require of all that which they now only seek permission to do. Again, history and simply following the progressive line of reasoning means it will come to that.
posted August 11, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Tom,
It is unusual to see so many refuted Catholic apologetic arguments in so few posts. Just for the edification of our readers we should probably lay them to rest:
You wrote: “We would reject the notion that this Church (singular) could at one and the same time teach different doctrines and operate under the guidance of distinct authoritative bodies.”
The false assumption here is that Rome does not. One need only compare the “Catholicism” of Boston College, for example, with that of San Francisco to see the very wide divergence in the Roman camp. The history of the Roman church is replete with doctrinal diversity. Think of Bernard of Clairvaux’s rejection of the Immaculate Conception, Augustine’s very protestant view of the Eucharist. And different authoritative bodies? You may wish to review the history of your church. For centuries, there were multiple popes and sometimes more than one in Rome. The Council of Constance assumed supreme authority over the church by excommunicating a pope or two and then “anointing” another only later to have the pope “anathematize” those who would appeal to a council over a pope. (Talk about a contradiction!) Today the Sedevacantists Catholics are on the rise, the Polish Catholic church is growing outside the bounds of Rome and yes, and we even have our own “American” pope. Not to mention the vast majority of Romanists disagree with the Pope on issues like contraception. And there are groups of bishops that openly defy Rome. So your view of Roman theology, history and unity is naïve if you don’t mind my saying so.
You wrote: “Who can believe that Christ intended his church to be speaking with 30,000 conflicting voices?”
Where did you get your number, Tom? (I bet you don’t know.) Some Roman apologists use 33,000, others 25,000 and they usually don’t know, either. This has been thoroughly researched and here’s the scoop:
“…the Roman Catholic apologist can take little comfort in the fact that he has only sixteen denominations while Protestantism has twenty-one; and he can take even less comfort in the fact that while Evangelicalism has no divisional breakdown, Roman Catholicism has at least four major divisions.” (30,000 Denominations? Dr. Eric Svendsen http://www.ntrmin.org/30000denominations.htm
. By the way, Tom, what do you think Jesus meant when He said, “Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.” Luke 12:51?
And, of course, if you take Matthew 16:18 so literally, you must also believe Matthew 16:23, right? So the “rock” of 16:18 is the same “Satan” of 16:23. The great irony of Roman apologists with regard to Matthew 16:18 is that not even Peter believed it. Acts 10:26 shows how Peter refused any reverence to his person. (Imagine the bishop of Rome doing that same thing!) And in his letters he refers to himself as a “fellow elder” 1 Peter 5:1. Acts 8:14 shows that the other Apostles had no special regard for Peter because they sent him out as one of their own. And of course, Paul publicly rebukes Peter for his apostasy in Galatians 2. You would agree, it’s hard to imagine anyone publicly rebuking a “pope” today. And modern Catholic theologians admit there was no “pope” for 500-900 years after Christ, depending upon your sources. They also show that a board of elders governed the first century Roman church! (Sounds Presbyterian to me!)
You wrote: “the Bible actually warns Christians of the danger in being misled by a mistaken interpretation of this passage or that.”
Well you seem pretty sure of your interpretations, Tom. Has the Magesterium infallibly defined these or are they your “private interpretations”? How can you be sure?
And then you misinterpret 1 Peter 3:15-16. What is Peter saying here, Tom? Is he saying because some “ignorant” people might mistake the message that we should throw out the Bible? No. He is saying that Paul writes with the “wisdom of God” and that he does so “in all his letters”. Of course, Peter recognizes that only “ignorant and unstable” people won’t get it. That’s why Paul tells Timothy to entrust the doctrine to “reliable men who will be qualified to teach others.” (2 Timothy 2:2). There was no doubt in either of their minds that one could know the truth. And Jesus Himself affirmed this when He says, “you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32.) So any misinterpretation is left to the ignorant and unstable, not to those to whom the Holy Spirit imparts knowledge.
And, of course, you miss the point of John 21. Here is where Jesus “restores” Peter. Peter was in grave danger of being out of the will of God for his cursing Jesus. Jesus is here bringing him back into the fold, not making him Supreme Pontiff. Consider the exchange. Jesus asks Peter three times “Do you (agape) me?” And Peter answers three times, “You know Lord, that I (fileo) you.” Because Peter could not possibly rise to the level of agape love in view of his “satanic” past, our Lord Jesus came down to meet him. This is hardly the coronation Mass for the first pope! But is a wonderful pastoral example from Jesus.
This is all proof of what the Catholic historian and theologian, Dr. Garry Wills maintains, in his book, “Why I Am A Catholic”:
Catholic Professors, thus fettered (by the forced interpretations of the Roman church) became a laughingstock in the world of Biblical scholarship.” P. 202
Tom, I’d encourage you to keep studying. Jesus promised that you – not a church – can know the truth. As to your arguments, we’ve heard them all before – and refuted them. I would invite you to repent and explore the goodness of God’s word. Because it is His, it is infallible and true.
“For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.” Romans 15:4
Peace.
posted August 12, 2008 at 3:25 am
Tom,
Sorry for the late reply. Days leading up to weekends get busy.
I appreciate your willingness to dialogue and the tenor of your emoticons =0). But as I have read your latest post, I scratch my head and think, “Why doesn’t he see what I see in the same passages?”
When I read “…I will not leave you as orphans, I will come to you.” I see that ‘coming’ in “…another Helper to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth…he…will be in you.” (Jn. 14.16-18); but you come up with Peter (?)
When I read the decision of Acts 15, I read about many voices contributing to their resolution. Their written declaration states, “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (Acts 15.28); but you claim it is all Peter (?)
When the topic of celibacy comes up, it is now a “discipline?” A discipline, that if violated in the RCC, will get a priest defrocked; but 1 Cor. 9.5 states that Peter was married (see also Mt. 8, Mk 1, & 1 Tim. 4.3)
And certainly Peter needed some catechesis from the Apostle Paul in Galatians 2.
I’m not a ‘Peter-phobe.’ He is a tremendous apostle of the church. But in all sincerity, I have problems with where the RCC goes resolve my questions. It usually isn’t a discussion of Greek syntax, historical context, or textual analysis — it’s usually another tradition of scholarship to which I cannot apply the standard tools of hermeneutics – coupled with the mantra, “You wouldn’t even have a Bible if it wasn’t for us!” (We wouldn’t have Fatima either!)
I agree that we each have a tradition of interpreting the scriptures. My tradition rests upon the standard rules of hermeneutics (a bit lengthy to unfold here) and a consortium of voices who have best articulated the teachings of Scripture (Augustine, Calvin, the Westminster Divines, etc.)
I say “best articulated” because I would argue that those who do not embrace this stream of tradition are simply WRONG on so many details of the faith — but not necessarily “fatally.”
Example: I am persuaded by scripture, and the theology derived from it, that women should not be ordained as Elders. And yet, Dr. Roberts has written a great, scripture oriented defense of this practice (http://markdroberts.com/?p=536). Our debate is founded upon passages primarily. Since there are theological consequences related to this debate, we find ourselves in different Presbyterian denominations. I think my denomination (which is older) will outlast his because of our continual and hard fought commitment to a tradition that is finally founded upon a conviction related to the texts of Scripture. That may sound a bit arrogant; but in saying this, I know that what we do share in common is far more profound than a particular “brand” of church. It’s a shared commitment to the complete reign of Christ as Savior and Lord in His church, no matter what the stripe!
Finally, that last quotation… Is that the official DOCTRINE of the RCC? If so, it is clearly not Augustinian!
Grace and Peace,
posted August 12, 2008 at 11:19 am
Tom said: “I guess it depends on how one defines a Christian. I think the fairest definition would have to be someone who tries to follow the teachings of Christ.”
I prefer one of Paul’s formulations. Confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in the power that raised him from the dead. I do not doubt that many liberals are trying to follow the teachings of Christ as they see it. But some have the content wrong. To be a Christian one must acknowledge Jesus as Lord (and all the theological content that entails including about his death) as well as believing in the power that raised him from the dead – hard to skirt a belief in the resurrection here. In the context of the NT, to say that I am a Christian, but don’t believe in the atoning sacrifice or the Resurrection is nonsense language.
posted August 13, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Constantine,
“The false assumption here is that Rome does not [teach different doctrines]. One need only compare the “Catholicism” of Boston College, for example, with that of San Francisco to see the very wide divergence in the Roman camp.”
??
I don’t follow. If you are pointing out the fact that in the Catholic Church there are plenty of dissenters from Catholic teaching, you’ll find no argument with me. Sad to say Nancy Pelosi ‘Catholics’ are a dime a dozen. But Pelosi, Kennedy and Kerry have between the three of them zero authority in the Church. Same goes for the rest of the laity, myself included. Now it is also true that there are members of the clergy who push the envelope, if not openly dissent from, Church teaching (cf. Notre Dame’s Fr. McBrien).
But the relevant point here Constantine is that the McBriens and Pelosis in the Church are dissenting from something. That something is the clear teaching of the Catholic Church, proclaimed with one voice, and held as true by all the faithful.
“The history of the Roman church is replete with doctrinal diversity.”
Not true.
“Think of Bernard of Clairvaux’s rejection of the Immaculate Conception”
Bernard of Clairvaux died in 1153. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception was defined by the Church some 700 years later on December 8, 1854. Up until this point, Catholics were free to believe in it or not without being accused of heresy; a freedom which was reiterated by the Council of Trent in the 1500’s.
“Augustine’s very protestant view of the Eucharist.”
Acting alone Augustine (or, for that matter, any of the Church fathers) has never enjoyed the full authority of the Church. He has had a profound influence on Catholic theology, yes; but we do not hesitate to admit some parts of his theology were flawed. (This is quite understandable as he was never an infallible theologian.)
Having said all that – what exactly is it about his view of the Eucharist that is so Protestant?
Here are three quotes I found from Augustine on the Eucharist:
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).
…It all sounds very *Catholic* – not Protestant – to me.
“And different authoritative bodies? You may wish to review the history of your church.”
I’m listening.
“For centuries, there were multiple popes and sometimes more than one in Rome.”
Well, let’s be clear (especially in light of your opening line about setting the record straight). There have been times in the past where multiple men were CLAIMING to be pope (sometimes referred to as “anti-popes”), but the Catholic Church has never had more than one pope alive at a given time. And the times when more than one made the claim did not last “for centuries”. They usually lasted for no longer than the lifetime of those wrongly claiming to be pope; typically 20 or 30 years.
I think Wikipedia does a fair job of presenting it. You can trace the lineage back to Peter at this link, with the names in red being “anti-popes”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes_%28graphical%29
“The Council of Constance assumed supreme authority over the church by excommunicating a pope or two and then “anointing” another only later to have the pope “anathematize” those who would appeal to a council over a pope. (Talk about a contradiction!)”
There have been confusing times in the Church’s history. Admittedly, the history of the papacy isn’t all good. But I think it is only further evidence that if the papacy and the succession of the Apostles were of merely human origin and not divinely established and preserved by the Triune God, they would have collapsed centuries ago under the weight of human weakness. The dark chapters are simply the proof that the Catholic Church is Christ’s Church, not the pope’s Church.
“Today the Sedevacantists Catholics are on the rise”
Actually, with Pope Benedict in the chair, I think they may be on the decline. But never mind that. The issue is separate and distinct from the question of the Church’s authority, for sedevacantists – like all heretics – have no authority at all.
“the Polish Catholic church is growing outside the bounds of Rome and yes, and we even have our own “American” pope.”
Again, these are as much a “different authoritative body of the Catholic Church” as the Presbyterian Church or the Assemblies of God are. By the way, the Polish Catholic Church (as distinct from the Catholic Church in Poland) has a membership of 23,000. And who has ever heard of the American pope?? I’m sure there is some American making the claim; but then again some folks say they’ve seen Elvis, and others have been abducted by aliens.
“Not to mention the vast majority of Romanists disagree with the Pope on issues like contraception.”
Ah hah! The C word. Now we get to the heart of the matter. It is true that the majority of Catholics practice contraception, despite the Church’s clear teaching to the contrary. But as G.K. Chesterton once observed, “Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” Once again, Catholics who knowingly disobey the Church’s moral teaching pose no threat to the authority of the Church; only to their eternal salvation.
Oh, and Constantine – for the sake of charity, I’d really prefer you use the term “Catholic” in place of “Romanist.” It’s not that I have an issue with the word so much as I have an issue with a Protestant using it as something of a slur against Catholics. Especially when we’re trying to have a sincere and friendly discussion/debate about serious issues.
“And there are groups of bishops that openly defy Rome.”
There have been in the past, for instance when Humanae Vitae hit the wires. But I’m not aware of any today (doesn’t mean there aren’t…I’m just not aware). Regardless, a bishop or group of bishops who defy the Holy Father and the bishops in union with him on matters of doctrine will have much to answer for. It was not without reason that St. John Chrysostom, writing around the year 400 said “The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops!”
“So your view of Roman theology, history and unity is naïve if you don’t mind my saying so.”
There’s that “Roman” jab again. But thanks for the history lesson – you really have a knack for teaching and explaining things in a way that doesn’t come across in the least bit insulting.
“Where did you get your number, Tom? (I bet you don’t know.)”
I’ve heard numbers upwards of 25,000 from various sources. Wikipedia puts it this way, “The actual number of distinct denominations is hard to calculate, but has been estimated to be over thirty thousand.” And according to the World Christian Encyclopedia (2nd edition, 2001) “there are over 33,000 denominations in 238 countries” and every year there is a net increase of around 270 to 300 denominations.
Out of curiosity, what number do you go by? 19?
“Some Roman apologists use 33,000, others 25,000 and they usually don’t know, either.”
After about 1,000 or so I would think it can get hard to keep track. Not sure why this discrepancy is such a hang-up for you, especially since the numbers continue to go up, not down. In a few years 25,000 turns into 26,000 and so on.
“…the Roman Catholic apologist can take little comfort in the fact that he has only sixteen denominations”
There are no denominations within Catholicism. There are about 27 different rites, but we are one in faith and in doctrine. We are all united under Benedict XVI; we differ only in the outward form of how we celebrate the sacraments, most notably the Mass. This is nothing like the divisions that exist within Protestantism.
You can read about the various rites in the Catholic Church here:
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm
“By the way, Tom, what do you think Jesus meant when He said, “Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.” Luke 12:51?”
I don’t think he meant he wanted to establish a Church divided on doctrine.
“And, of course, if you take Matthew 16:18 so literally, you must also believe Matthew 16:23, right? So the “rock” of 16:18 is the same “Satan” of 16:23.”
No, I don’t take Matthew 16 so literally that I think Christ turned Simon into a literal stone or rock. I do think he changed Simon’s name to Peter, and that changing his name was as significant – if not more so – than the other times in Scripture when God changes a person’s name (cf., Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel, Eliakim to Joakim). In Simon-Peter’s case it was the only time the new name chosen by God had a prior meaning; the meaning of “Petros” is “Rock.” If you were to turn to a friend and say, “From now on your name is Asparagus,” people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify?
In the same way, Christ changing Simon’s name to Rock was not a meaningless gesture. Especially when viewed in conjunction with his promise to give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, the power to bind and loose, the pleading in John 21 to “feed my sheep,” and Our Lord’s words in Luke 22, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.
“Acts 10:26 shows how Peter refused any reverence to his person. (Imagine the bishop of Rome doing that same thing!)”
A couple of things. First, let us listen to the words of the verse, starting with 25 (King James Version):
And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.
It says he “worshipped him,” in which case it would be proper to stand him up as Peter did. No creature is worthy of worship. But we can reverence a person who holds a high office; for instance, a king, or a president, or a judge. There was no wrong or evil when in centuries past people would genuflect before a king or queen – it was an act of reverence. There is no wrong in standing for the entrance/departure of a judge (“All rise!”), or in calling him “Your Honor.” It would be wrong to worship; it is not wrong to reverence or honor another human being, especially when one is showing reverence primarily to the office held. In the same way, it is not wrong for a Catholic (or non-Catholic) to genuflect upon greeting the successor of St. Peter.
Secondly, it may well be true that Peter did not even realize the gravity of his own commission from Christ; of all that had been entrusted to him, of what it meant to be the visible head of Christ’s Church. And being a humble man (like our current pope) he insisted the man rise and not pay him any homage or reverence.
“You would agree, it’s hard to imagine anyone publicly rebuking a “pope” today.”
Actually, no I wouldn’t agree with that. If the pope were to commit some public sin, it would be right and just to rebuke him, as St. Paul did.
“And modern Catholic theologians admit there was no “pope” for 500-900 years after Christ, depending upon your sources. They also show that a board of elders governed the first century Roman church!”
????
This is simply not true, and is yet another reason to not listen to “modern Catholic theologians.”
Pope Clement I:
“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).
Irenaeus:
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
Augustine:
“[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).
“Well you seem pretty sure of your interpretations, Tom. Has the Magesterium infallibly defined these or are they your “private interpretations”?”
No, they are not my private interpretations. And yes, I am pretty sure of them because I know that they are not derived or dependent upon my own feeble understanding. They come to me by the same authority that defined what is and is not Scripture in the first place. Odd that you – a non-Catholic – would trust the Catholic Church in giving you a list of inspired Scriptures, but not in interpreting specific passages which the “ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction.”
This post is way to long already so I’m afraid I’m going to have to stop here.
posted August 14, 2008 at 11:01 am
“Sorry for the late reply.”
No problem – I think yesterday was the first time I had a chance to check back on our discussion since I last posted.
“as I have read your latest post, I scratch my head and think, “Why doesn’t he see what I see in the same passages?””
I thought I was the only one! ?
“When I read “…I will not leave you as orphans, I will come to you.” I see that ‘coming’ in “…another Helper to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth…he…will be in you.” (Jn. 14.16-18); but you come up with Peter (?)”
No, I read it the same way you do (another Helper = the Holy Spirit), but I also look at who Our Lord is talking to, who the ‘Spirit of truth’ is helping: his apostles. In verse 26 he reiterates “The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name–he will teach YOU everything and remind YOU of all that I told you.” (emphases mine, of course)
I read in John a promise from Christ to always be with his apostles, guiding them “into all truth.” This seems to me the most reasonable understanding of the passage for all of the reasons mentioned in previous posts.
“When I read the decision of Acts 15, I read about many voices contributing to their resolution. Their written declaration states, “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (Acts 15.28); but you claim it is all Peter (?)”
I don’t claim it is “all Peter.” I realize that there was a debate with apostles and disciples taking different positions on the question of circumcision. But at the same time it is clear that Peter was the one who made the decision. “After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them…” (Acts 15:7) Catholics view Acts 15 as the very first Church council – the Council of Jerusalem. Every Council since then has looked much the same (debate/discussion of theological matters, followed by a decision from Peter’s successor and the bishops in union with him).
We should also note that not only does this passage support the primacy of Peter, but it undercuts a belief in Sola Scriptura. Observe that were the apostles to use Scripture Alone as their guide, they would have to conclude the Gentiles converting to Christianity should be circumcised. This is what was commanded according to the law of Moses – a law that Christ explicitly did not do away with. But Peter and the apostles were not relying on Scripture Alone. In addition to the Old Testament they had the three years spent in company with Christ, and they had the guidance of the Spirit of Truth promised them in John 14.
“When the topic of celibacy comes up, it is now a “discipline?””
It has always been a discipline.
“A discipline, that if violated in the RCC, will get a priest defrocked”
Well, sure. As a priest you take a vow of chastity. Going back on your promise before God is not a trivial thing.
“1 Cor. 9.5 states that Peter was married (see also Mt. 8, Mk 1, & 1 Tim. 4.3)”
Catholics don’t deny that Peter was married. It’s likely that many of the apostles and first successors were. Celibacy is a discipline in the Western Church that has developed over time (Eastern Rite priests are permitted to marry). Even today, though, exceptions are made. For example, there are married Latin-Rite priests who are converts from Lutheranism and Episcopalianism.
As these variations and exceptions indicate, priestly celibacy is not an unchangeable dogma but a disciplinary rule. The fact that Peter was married is no more contrary to the Catholic faith than the fact that the pastor of the nearest Maronite Catholic church is married.
It’s also worth mentioning that even Paul makes a case for preferring celibacy to marriage: “Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband” (1 Cor. 7:27-34).
Paul’s conclusion: He who marries “does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better” (7:38).
Most Catholics marry, and all Catholics are taught to venerate marriage as a holy institution—a sacrament, an action of God upon our souls; one of the holiest things we encounter in this life.
In fact, it is precisely the holiness of marriage that makes celibacy precious; for only what is good and holy in itself can be given up for God as a sacrifice. Just as fasting presupposes the goodness of food, celibacy presupposes the goodness of marriage. To despise celibacy, therefore, is to undermine marriage itself—as the early Fathers pointed out.
Celibacy is also a life-affirming institution. In the Old Testament, where celibacy was almost unknown, the childless were often despised by others and themselves; only through children, it was felt, did one acquire value. By renouncing marriage, the celibate affirms the intrinsic value of each human life in itself, regardless of offspring.
Finally, celibacy is an eschatological sign to the Church, a living-out in the present of the universal celibacy of heaven: “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matt. 22:30).
“in all sincerity, I have problems with where the RCC goes resolve my questions. It usually isn’t a discussion of Greek syntax, historical context, or textual analysis”
Really? That’s precisely what I’ve found the Catholic Church offers me in defense of its teachings: a discussion of the original Greek, historical context and textual analysis. To expand on the historical context a bit, the Church also points to the early Christian church – a Church which was thoroughly Catholic in belief and practice.
“You wouldn’t even have a Bible if it wasn’t for us!” (We wouldn’t have Fatima either!)”
Well, my post is once again getting way too long and I’m not going to be able to justly defend the objection made here. However, set aside Fatima and Lourdes for just a second; can we agree that it was the Catholic Church which gave us the Bible?
Because what it looks like you’re doing RevK, is using some belief of Catholics (in this case, an apparition of Mary) that seems totally absurd – blasphemous? — to you, as a way to dismiss everything else out of hand. “Well, *clearly* they’re off their rocker on this point, so they can’t possibly be right on the other points.” Whereas, I think if you were to take a serious look at the various pieces, one by one – perhaps starting with the compilation of scripture – and an honest inquiry into what Catholics believe about Mary and why, it would not be quite so easy to just write us off as nutso-Mary-worshippers.
“Finally, that last quotation… Is that the official DOCTRINE of the RCC? If so, it is clearly not Augustinian!”
Yes, that is an official doctrine of Catholicism. You can find it in paragraph 847 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. As I mentioned to Constantine, Augustine was not infallible.
posted August 14, 2008 at 2:57 pm
It does seem like we’re getting a bit off topic here. But I would like to remind everyone that the history of the churches now known as “Orthodox” and “Roman Catholic,” (and all those in communion with those churches) is also the same history of all Protestant churches up until the reformation. In my view, we’re all from the same family tree, whether we study and appreciate our history or not. But then I’ve never known of a family where everyone got along all the time and never had any disagreements. (Or where there weren’t a few unsavory characters!) Peace, brothers.
posted August 19, 2008 at 12:29 am
I was led to this page via MDR’s appearance on the Hewitt program last week.
As I observe American protestant denominations, it is amazing that matters of faith are left to a majority vote, and in some cases, votes and re-votes. (Shouldn’t some questions, once decided, remain decided?) Coupled with that is an American tendency to make tenets of Christian faith conform to political beliefs. Astonishingly, faith yields to politics, not vice versa.
This political force seems particularly corrupting. Rather than start a new denomination with new values, it expropriates the existing institution and force those who prefer to retain traditional values to leave.
posted August 20, 2008 at 10:19 am
“As I observe American protestant denominations, it is amazing that matters of faith are left to a majority vote, and in some cases, votes and re-votes.”
Well said, Observer.
I am reminded of a quote from Pope Benedict XVI that I think we can all agree with: ‘Truth is not determined by a majority vote.’
posted August 20, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Tom,
Sorry for the delay.
First, referring to your church as “Roman” is not a jab. Interestingly enough, one of your priests has rightly commented that the term “Roman Catholic” is an oxymoron. Your church is not truly “catholic” because it does not contain all true believers. So a church that is based in Rome, owes its allegiance to the Bishop of Rome is, well, Roman. It’s odd that the Greeks or Russians don’t have an issue with being called “Greek” or “Russian” but the Romans do.
You rightly cite the date for the infallible dogma of the Immaculate Conception. But Vatican I precludes you from analyzing it the way you do. While you may prefer the “Newman-esque” development approach, Vatican I proclaims,
The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin — a doctrine which is so perfectly in harmony with her wonderful sanctity and preeminent dignity as Mother of God — and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts. Ineffabilis Deus, 1854 (Emphasis mine).
The point of mentioning Bernard is not to have you pronounce him a heretic, but instead to show that a church “Father” did not “ever hold” or “never ceased” to proclaim this “truth”. In other words, there is a mistake in the infallibility.
Now you may want to point out that Bernard was not a member of the “Magisterium”, and you would be quite right. But he is considered a “father” of the church and his thought is therefore, given extra weight. Or we can talk about how not one, but two popes condemned the dogma of the Bodily Assumption declared infallible by the same pope. (I would refer you to the work of William Webster for the details.) And for further contradictions is “doctrine” we can talk about the oaths the popes were required to take denouncing Honorius – until the Magisterium realized that “eating one of its own” would undermine papal infallibility. So that practice was stopped. Other examples of doctrinal inconsistencies would include the celibacy of priests, “confession” before and after the Fourth Lateran Council, etc.
Regarding the issue of the date of the first pope, I hope you don’t mind that I dismiss your dismissal. While you may disagree with sources, the facts are what they are. I offer a few for your consideration.
1. First Century, Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians, states that Roman church is governed by a “multiplicity of elders”.
2. End of the 2nd century, Bishop Victor of Rome tries to excommunicate most of Asia Minor. Irenaeus leads the charge to override this action.
3. Middle of the third century, 7th Council of Carthage, Cyprian states, “None of us sets ourselves up as a “bishop of bishops”.
4. Bishop Stephen ( d. 257) tries to exclude many for “heretical baptism”. The bishops of Alexandria and Caesarea join Cyprian to block this.
5. The emperor Constantine (d. 337) bore the title “Pontifex Maximus” and had a monopoly of power over church matters.
6. “Even Augustine, the great contemporary of bishops Damasus, Siricius, Innocent and Boniface, who was truly a friend of Rome, knows nothing of a Petrine primacy of jurisdiction.” Hans Kueng, “Christianity: Essence, History and Future” 2006.
So it is seen that for at least the first five centuries, there was nothing resembling a modern papacy in Rome. We’ll dedicate another post to explore the papacy, its abuses and power dependencies.
Your interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is quite modern. A survey was done of the church Fathers by the “Catholic” theologian Launoy. Regarding the “rock” of Matthew 16:18, he found the following: 8 Fathers believed the “rock” to be the Apostles; 16 believed it was Christ, Himself; 17 believed it was Peter (although none of these held to any idea of “succession”; and 44 Fathers believed that the “rock” was Peter’s confession. (The Roman Catholic Controversy, James R. White 1996)
“So that the mere fact that Fathers differed in opinion as to what was meant by “this rock,” and that occasionally the same Father wavered in his opinion on this subject, proves that none of them regarded this text as one establishing a perpetual constitution for the Christian Church.” Salmon, “The Infallibility of the Church” as quoted in White.
More needs to be said about a “few bad men” and the history of the papacy but we can save that for next time.
Peace.