Transcription
All right, welcome to the Least of These podcast. Um, I have my good friend Joe Heschmeyer here on the podcast. Joe, it's good to to have you on.
Thanks, it's good to be here.
All right. So, today obviously we're going to be talking about the papacy. Um, going through of course the case for it, the case against it, where we could probably um find a little bit of common ground and get a better understanding of each other. Obviously, what brought us here, Joe, is the fact that you know, I did a video kind of commenting on one argument that you made in your book, Pope Peter, which by the way, I actually have and am working my way through it. It's a very good read. I encourage every well, Protestants who are seriously trying to engage in these conversations, I think Joe has a lot to offer to us. Even if we end up disagreeing, I do think you make a lot of solid points and I did want to say that at the outset. Thank you. So, kudos to you on that one. So, Joe, why don't you obviously kick us off by maybe rehashing the C.S. Lewis example that you, the trilemma example that you pointed out in your book?
Yeah, so this was the kind of the point in the book that you had made a video about and this is sort of launched the conversation that people are seeing today. And in the book, I I make a point that we should think about the Catholic Church in a way that's a little bit analogous to the way that we ask people to think about Jesus. Now, that might sound shocking to people's ears, but let me explain what I mean. I don't mean the church is Jesus or something like that. What I mean is that both Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church make these grand claims. And so as a result, you can't simply write them off as wrong but good. Uh so Lewis has his famous trilemma. He says about Jesus, "You must make your choice. I either this man was and is the son of God or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon, or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." And so when you are looking at the claims of Jesus, you don't just say, "Well, I agree with this part of his teaching, but I reject that part. And so, you know, I'm I'm about 85% agreement, so I guess I'll call myself a follower of Jesus." That is not actually good enough because there you're agreeing or disagreeing with the exterior of the teaching, and you're being asked to accept or reject something deeper, something interior, his claim, his identity, like who he is. Either he is the son of God or he's not. If he's not, it doesn't matter if he was right 85% of the time. And if he is, then if you disagree with him 15% of the time, that's a a problem with you and not him. And so I'd say the same thing with the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church doesn't just claim to be a denomination. You know, the the various Protestant denominations, they recognize that they're man-made. They recognize that they don't go back 2,000 years, and they don't pretend otherwise. You will occasionally have some kind of fringe groups that claim to be, you know, the restoration of the original church or they claim to have been the underground church that was there all all along. But for the vast majority of people who call themselves Protestants or non-Catholic Christians of various stripes, they recognize, like, "Okay, we know where we came from, and this is a group of followers of Jesus trying our best to understand his teachings and to proclaim them and to live them out." And so you might say, "Well, I agree with the Methodists on 80% of things and I agree with the Baptists on 85% of things. I'm going to call myself a Baptist, but there's some things that I think the Methodists get right and the Baptists get wrong and so on. And that's as far as I can tell, basically fine within the world of Protestantism. Nobody's claiming to be infallible. Nobody's claiming to have it all perfect. The Catholic Church is different. If you say, you know, the Catholic Church got 85% of dogma right, that's not good enough. Either the Catholic Church is the institution created by Christ, which is what the Catholic Church claims to be, or the Church isn't that, in which case, even if it happens to get a lot of stuff right, you still shouldn't be Catholic. And so, just as we have to kind of reframe the question, and it's not any good to say, Jesus is a basically good teacher. No, he's either much more or much less than that. So, with the Catholic Church, you can't just say the Catholic Church is basically good denomination. The Church is either much more than that or much less than that.
Got you. Yeah. Um Yeah, and I I actually found this argument very intuitive, very um really convincing and and and getting at the core of the papal claim, right? What truly you know, basically set aside Protestants from Catholics. Now, I would clarify one thing that you said, Joe, as it relates to how Protestants see themselves. So, we would actually all see ourselves as encompassing the Church. However, obviously, we have various disagreements. That's what kind of separates, let's say, a Methodist from a Baptist, Presbyterian, etc., etc. But, we would say all of us collectively make up the the Church. But, even more than that, though, the reason why I found this argument so persuasive it's is because I do feel like there is a gap in Protestant apologetics more specifically where we have a lot of Protestant apologists not truly wrestle with the claims of Rome because to your point, Rome doesn't claim to be like the Methodist Church or like the Presbyterian Church or the Baptist Church. Rome claims to be the one true church, right? Um And of course having Peter as the the foundation for that or at least one of the foundations. We'll kind of get clarity on that in this conversation. Um and I think we often make a mistake as Protestant apologists and conducting a lot of our conversations as if Rome is just like one of these other denominations that we kind of sort of agree with on this or that issue and it's just like uh I think and I imagined there's a lot of Protestants Protestant apologists who are trying to be charitable to obviously their Catholic listeners because I got to give y'all credit. Catholics are dominating on the YouTube sphere. I'm like I started a YouTube channel and I'm expecting ton of Protestants. Nope. Mostly Catholics. And I'm just like, you know what? That's all right. I I'm okay with that. Hence why whenever they told me I need to have a conversation with Joe, I was like, it's not that easy. Um but you know, maybe I stand a little bit corrected. So I apologize. But um But yeah, I see a lot of Protestant apologists speaking as if Rome is you know, claiming to be one other denomination. Maybe that just has a little bit more stuff that they hold to. And I'm just like I think y'all have to do a better job in framing this correctly to the audience, right? Because we're constantly going to be talking past each other if we merely are like, oh, let's talk about this or that issue. Let's talk about purgatory. Let's talk about praying to the saints. Let's talk about all this other stuff. And one of the things I appreciate about what you said is that look, all those conversations are good, fine and dandy. They should be had, etc., etc. However, much like the case of Jesus, you could be like, oh man, I I feel like his teaching on, let's say, homosexuality or something like that is very hard to grasp, but and C.S. Lewis's point is kind of like, yeah, like I feel you, but if Jesus is who he says he is, then you're just going to have to like accept it. Maybe there's going to be some time that it's going to take for you to to truly mature in your faith, but make no mistake about it, if Jesus is the son of God, there's no room for you to like try to disagree or say, oh, I can, whatever, set that aside. And I think the same thing is the papacy. Like the papacy has some very large claims, and so to speak about disagreeing with the papacy on, let's say, purgatory, praying to the saints, whatever Marian dogma, is kind of like a downstream issue that we end up just talking past each other because it's like, let's get to the the central issue or the central question, which is, is the papacy true, right? Cuz that can kind of clarify a lot of things. But what would you say?
Yeah, I think I think that's a very good way of framing it. And as you were describing that, I was thinking about the way I see people misunderstand the example of the Bereans in Acts. You know, you remember the Christians in Berea, they hear the apostles preaching, and Paul is talking about Jesus being the fulfillment of these things in the Old Testament and then they're going to consult the scripture. And all of that is really good. But it would be a mistake to say therefore we only accept things that Paul preaches that we can see in the Old Testament. Because Paul's preaching all sorts of things that they wouldn't have seen in the Old Testament, at least not explicitly. You know, he's preaching for example that they're no longer bound by the Mosaic law around things like circumcision. Now, you're not going to find that in the Old Testament. It is true. And this is not a knock against the Old Testament at all. But at the time that he's preaching, he's preaching these things where if you know Paul is who he says he is and he has the authority that he claims to have, then even if your own reading of scripture wouldn't lead you to those same conclusions, you would have to in faith accept those conclusions anyway and just say like, "Okay, this must be true even if I don't get why." And that's of course true of of the people following Jesus. A good example of this is in John 20 when Peter and John get to the empty tomb and John goes in and we're told and he saw and believed, for as yet they did not know the scripture that he must rise from the dead. So, he clearly is believing in the resurrection even though his own reading of the Old Testament had not revealed to him that Jesus was going to rise from the dead. Later on, he understands the biblical case for the resurrection. The biblical case exists, but his belief in the resurrection isn't kind of proportionate to it. He believes in it because he has these external reasons for believing, "Okay, Jesus is who he says he is. This all is true. He's seen the res you know, he's seen the empty tomb." And he's come to faith. And that's a good way to think about it because so often people will say, "Okay, I've got these 20 different issues that as as Protestant I think the Catholic Church gets wrong, but I feel drawn to Catholicism on these other 20 issues. So, I got to work through this whole list, and if I can get 20 out of 20, then I'll become Catholic." And that's just not the right way to handle these things. I understand where people are coming from. I understand why that feels intuitive, but imagine if somebody listened to the Sermon on the Mount and said, "Okay, there were some really beautiful things in there. There were some really challenging things in there. Let me go through this list, and if Jesus gets a perfect score, then I'll follow him." Like, no, no. That's not how this works. You have the evidence of the teaching and of the miracles, and the point of that evidence is not simply to teach you things, but also to show you this deeper reality, that Jesus isn't just someone who tells the truth, Jesus is the truth. He is the way, the truth, and the life. And once you see that, you follow him even where your own private reasoning wouldn't have gotten you to the truth. You just you trust him more than you trust your own private judgment. Well, similarly, the church in Acts is calling itself the way. This is a reference to Jesus being the way, the truth, and the life. And so, if the church is the way, and it's the pillar and foundation of truth, as St. Paul says, then we should expect a similar kind of test. That the truth of the church is the kind of thing where it's not just like, "Well, of all that you know, you you can find these like denominational quizzes online where you say, 'Here are my theological leanings.' They'll say, 'This is the church that best matches you.'" That's not how anybody in the Bible operates. Nobody in the Bible just says, "Here are the pre-existing theological beliefs I have, and I'm going to find a church that reflects and represents my views." No. You receive the church. It is brought into your town, and it is proclaimed, and it is a visible thing, and you accept it or you reject it. The fact you might be inclined to agree with the teaching or inclined to struggle with the teaching is almost irrelevant to the question.
Yeah. And actually what you just said there actually makes uh me think about a couple of different points that you brought up in your book and that and this is why I recommend again a very thoughtful Protestant who's really seriously trying to engage with it to read it because I think there's a couple of critiques that we see in some of the fringes of Protestantism that actually doesn't become so much fringe in certain context um that I think we do need to work through it because like even with this whole idea of like oh let's take a quiz and see what church aligns up with me is like yeah there is something deeply wrong about that and so that's a couple of things of of course I have I want to do a book review on your book obviously it'll be a very charitable one
[laughter]
but because I do think you have a lot to offer to Protestantism in this respect but to the point that you made a bit earlier about Rome's claims this is where I actually want to encourage people who are seriously trying to engage in this conversation to one we have to be disciplined enough to set aside the downstream questions for right now for handling the upstream question which is is the papacy true and I think one of the ways that we could do that and of course I I sent this to you Joe to make sure that we're on the same page here is what I've I have identified is that there are seven claims to kind of make up the papacy and I want to run through these and maybe what I'll do is kind of have them up on a screen for everybody to to have a visual the first is that Peter possesses authority over over apostles and not merely prominence among them. Uh the second is that Peter possesses universal jurisdiction over the entire church. Uh the third is that Peter's authority was intended to continue beyond his lifetime. Of course, this is through apostolic succession. Um the fourth is that Peter's authority is passed on through apostolic succession. And that uh five is Peter's authority belongs uniquely to the bishops of Rome. And then at six, the Peter and his successors possess a divinely protected charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. And then seventh, um all Christians are obligated to submit to the bishop of Rome as the visible head of the church. And so, what I've kind of And you could tell me if if you want to add anything else, but what I've realized that that in a nutshell is kind of like the claim of the papacy. And so, uh yeah, without
That That list sounds pretty good.
Yeah, yeah. Without one of those, you don't have the papacy uh proper understood properly understood. And so, um if that is the target, I think one of the things that I've typically seen is that a lot of especially whenever I'm get engaging with my Catholic uh listeners, um one of the things that can probably help uh Catholics understand where Protestants are coming from. We're looking at that claim. Right? That's a very large claim. Obviously, you already acknowledge that. And so, you're probably not going to just convince a Protestant, especially a more thoughtful Protestant, just off of handing them one verse and say, "Voilà, you know, there goes the papacy." Um you know, we're like, "Okay, hold up. You're You're claiming a lot more than just what that one verse may kind of insinuate. And so, um I recognize, by the way, we're probably not going to get through all of these claims in this uh discussion. Totally recognize it, but I think in uh help in hopes of having a more productive discussion going forward, I think we have to realize that this is the target that we have to aim for, or that um you know, Rome has to aim for in its articulation of how it comes to these um explanations. I already acknowledge, and I want to kind of maybe beat you to it, Joe, that uh Rome sees not just scripture, but scripture, tradition, magisterium, things of that nature. So, like, if you don't find a bunch of pieces in scripture, obviously, that's where tradition comes in. So, I want to uh make sure I correctly uh you know, say that at the outset. Would would you say the same, like, that's where you would find the full case of the papacy?
Yeah, well, I guess I'd say this. You know, Jesus compares the kingdom to a mustard seed that grows into a mustard tree. And so, a lot of the objections you'll get are that, "Hey, I look around today, and the Catholic Church doesn't look very much like it looked 2,000 years ago." And it's like, "Well, it shouldn't. A mustard tree doesn't look very much like a mustard seed. And so, we expect it to be grown up." In the book, I actually give this example. You know, if you were looking at and you've got a say, you find a really old milk carton from 20 years ago.
Right.
And it's got a missing child picture on it. I know this is a little bit of a grim example. And then you go to the park later that day, and you see a kid that looks just like the kid on the milk carton. The one thing you can know for sure is that that's not the right kid.
Right.
Because, unless you believe in time travel, that you're looking for somebody 20 years older. And you're looking for somebody 20 years more grown-up looking. And so, likewise, there is this attempt This happens a lot in the US beginning in the 19th century of what's called primitivism. And then this gives birth to like Pentecostalism. And it It's these various attempts to say, "Let's have a simple religion like the kind we imagine that the early Christians believed and practiced. And we want our church to look like their church." There's a house church movement. There's all this kind of stuff. And it's these various forms of trying to recreate the mustard seed. And all of that is just patently unbiblical. Our job is not to go and recreate the mustard seed. Our job is to find the mustard tree and to be part of that mustard tree. And so, that's where, you know, history, tradition, all of that stuff can be very helpful in figuring out how in the world did that little seed turn into this tree. Not that, you know, history is going to be received with the same authority of scripture, but just putting those pieces together, it can certainly be helpful. Uh so, I In the book, I I can find myself almost exclusively to a purely biblical case. And I'm looking just specifically at really one question. Does Jesus put Peter in a papal type role within the church? Because whatever form of church governance you believe in, whether you're a congregationalist or a Presbyterian or whatever it is, it's worth asking, "Okay, do I believe this is just my favorite preferred style? Or do I think Jesus actually created a particular structure for the church?" And we see in the New Testament Jesus creating what looks like structure within the church even with the calling of the 12. The people don't choose the 12. The people don't choose their leaders early on. In Acts, you know, they choose the deacons, but the deacons aren't deacons until they receive the laying on of hands in Acts 6. And most of the time they don't have any apparent say. You've got, you know, Paul and Barnabas going from town to town choosing presbyters and deacons. You've got these uh pretty clear indications that this is all working in this kind of top-down manner. So, we should say, "Okay, like what is the actual biblical model?" So, whatever church setting you're in, whether you're Catholic or any various form of Protestant, say, "How do we get from the New Testament picture to what I see in my church today?" And that's going to involve some version of both interpreting scripture and knowing something about church history to just figure out where in the world does what I'm seeing around me come from?
Right, right. Um All right. So, I want to start going through kind of like the case cuz to your point, you do rely heavily on you know, obviously a lot of these biblical texts. And so, I want to work through what I believe, you could correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe is probably your favorite uh text for the papacy. Is it Luke 22?
You're right. That is my absolute favorite. I I think it's so much cleaner. I think debates on Matthew 16 get super in the weeds, super complicated very quickly. And I love how clean Luke 22 is and what a beautiful image it is of the papacy. But, I'll I'll let you kind of take it.
All right. All right. So, um of course, this is the passage where the disciples are kind of like doing what disciples do, arguing about who's the greatest among them. And Peter, I mean, not Peter, Jesus corrects them and uh but he doesn't necessarily, and this is to your point, he doesn't tell them, "Oh, well, none of you are the greatest, right?" Rather, he says, uh the idea that kind of like you would see with the pagan um kingdoms and how pagans kind of talk about being the greatness. Yeah, that's not what greatness is. And he kind of redefines greatness as in kind of like a servant leadership. Um and uh and that's very striking because obviously that means well one of them is the greatest uh and one of them is going to take on this kind of sort of servant leadership role. Um and then of course that this all gets bolstered by the passage that immediately precedes it where Peter singles out uh um Jesus Peter singles out Peter and says Simon Simon. Right? Um obviously Satan uh is looking to sift you all plural uh like wheat but I prayed for you, right? That your faith um will not ultimately fail um and then when your faith is uh basically restored go and strengthen your brothers, right? And and uh you do a good job in in pointing that out in Luke 22 cuz I think a lot of Protestants um and this is why I say you you're so very helpful in this respect. Um a lot of Protestants will mistake uh make the mistake of saying oh nobody's the greatest. And it's like uh uh uh don't don't don't do that. And then again um a lot of Protestants will not really look at the um the gravity of what Jesus is saying there to Peter by singling Peter out because this is very significant that all of their faith is going to be tested by Satan. But Jesus speaks specifically to Peter. Right? Um now I have uh my explanation and then I will obviously kick it over to you. Uh do you first of all do you think I missed anything about that story? I'm trying to
You did a great job with it. There is one thing so I've been listening to an audio book version of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls by Dr. John Bergsma and he pointed out a connection that I I'd not thought about that might be helpful here. Which is we know there are these kind of places of honor at banquets in Luke 14 when Jesus talks about when you go to a banquet take the lower place and then the master of the house might call you to a higher place. You know, that notion where we have like we are approaching the text through this very kind of American democratic everybody's equal sort of approach. That is not the Jewish world of the first century and that's not the world of the kingdom of God. I mean, the parable of the talents God gives one person five another two another one talent. Uh so that the myth of just we're all equally um called to lead or all equally talented or all equally whatever you that's we're equal in dignity. We're not equal in office or equal in gifts and nothing in scripture says otherwise. 1 Corinthians 12, St. Paul says God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers and workers of miracles and so on from there. And so there's a clear sense of hierarchy within the New Testament and many times as Americans the idea of hierarchy at all uh is just so repellent. Like we want the democracy of God. We want the people's republic of God. But Jesus comes and proclaims the kingdom of God and certainly he's at the top of that. But he's also very clear uh that other people are in positions of authority. So, the only other detail I'd add there is cuz you does you do a good job of drawing that you know, there's this dispute about where their ranking is beginning in verse 24 and this leads all the way through really verse 32 where he singles out Peter within that. In the midst of that, he says to the 12, "You are those who have continued with me in my trials. As my father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. So, again, not a democracy. The people are not choosing their leaders. Everybody's not the same. There are kingship roles that are given by Jesus. He is sharing divine kingship with the apostles. That as the Father appoints a kingdom for him, so does he appoint for the 12. And within that context, which is a really important context to get right, he has this conversation with Peter calling him to strengthen his brothers.
Got you. Got you. So, and I guess this is where we will start to get into what exactly this is proving. I would actually say, and of course I'll open it up to you, I would actually say that what this is proving is definitely that Peter has primacy here, that he has a type of prominence, and that he has a unique responsibility. The reason that I don't think this gets us to a kind of petrine supremacy is chiefly because we don't see this call by Jesus to govern the apostles. Right, it certainly is the case that Peter is being entrusted with a leadership role amongst the apostles. One that is unique from what the other apostles hold in their office, but we don't see that Peter is being tasked or being commanded to govern the apostles, and vice versa, we also don't see the apostles being commanded to maybe obey or follow Peter in, you know, in a kind of uh way that we would be what we would expect from let's say as we see in I think it's Hebrews chapter 13 where the author of Hebrews says obey your leaders, right? So, we see this two I guess you would say parallel situation where not only are the elders and the teachers in the church tasked with the responsibility of overseeing the people of God, but you also get this command where the people of God have to obey the leaders in the church. And so, what one of the Protestant pushbacks that we would offer here is that we don't see this with the apostles. Um yes, Peter is tasked with strengthening um the apostles, but what I would say is that strengthening does not automatically entail governing because all throughout the Bible we actually see that as Christians we're called to mutually strengthen each other. Now, obviously, logically speaking not everybody is their own governor of each other and things of that nature. And so, you know, that would be one of the the pushbacks that I would have in reading this in a papal supremacy way, but I will open it to you.
Yeah, I think there's a a couple things that immediately come to mind when you say that. First, you know, as you were saying, the context this arises in is when they're arguing about greatness and leadership. And uh Jesus says not to be like the kings of the Gentiles. And says rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest and the leader as one who serves. For which is the greater, one who sits at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I'm among you as one who serves. And then four verses later when he has the line that you you referenced earlier, Simon Simon behold Satan demanded to have you and this is you plural, you all Mhm. that he might sift you all like wheat, but prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you've turned again, strengthen your brethren." We are seeing him give Peter the task that he just said was the task of the leader. To serve and to strengthen in this way. Now, are there other ways people who aren't leaders are called to serve and strengthen? Absolutely true. In this particular context, when it arises in this way, the fact that all 12 are going to be under demonic assault, Judas is going to be lost, uh all 11 are going to flake and run away, only one of them is going to make it on Good Friday, and in the and Peter himself is going to deny Jesus three times, they're all going to have this serious demonic assault, and in the midst of that, Jesus prays for one of them particularly, and then tells him to strengthen the other ones. That looks like the exact kind of spiritual servant leadership uh that he's just described. Now, you are right, it doesn't say there, "Obey your leaders and submit to them." But you're also right that Hebrews 13:17 does that. So if Peter is the leader, then we know what that means for everybody else. Like Peter, the point of the passage from Peter's perspective is not everybody else has to submit to me. The point of the passage from Peter's perspective is, "I have to serve and strengthen everybody else." Like the whole 12 are called with strengthening the church. They are all called to be servant leaders. And then within the 12, Peter is called to serve them as they're serving everyone else. The So the emphasis isn't here's on what you're going to get. The emphasis is here's on what you have to do, but we see Peter in this kind of role. And I think this is cuz I mean, look, Protestants will generally recognize Peter obviously has some kind of leadership. Like Peter is mentioned more than all of the other apostles put together. And that's not a coincidence. The question then becomes, is Is just naturally a leader, or is Peter a leader because Jesus has put him in a position of leadership even over the people that are other apostles? And when you look at the biblical evidence clearly, Jesus is entrusting Peter with more authority and more responsibility than anybody else. And if we pair that with what you said about Hebrews 13, the other parts fall into place. So, just to give one example, I don't remember if I gave this in the book or not. In Matthew 26 in the Garden of Gethsemane, who falls asleep? Well, all of the 11 fall asleep. The only apostle that stays awake is Judas, and that's unfortunate. Yeah, the one guy who would have done better if he had fallen asleep. And when Jesus rebukes him, you know who he rebukes? He rebukes Peter. This is Matthew 26:40. And he came to the disciples and found them sleeping. And he said to Peter, "So, could you not watch with me one hour?" So, he singles Peter uniquely out because he expects more of Peter. As Luke 12:48 says, "To whom much has been entrusted to whom much is given, much will be expected." And the more you're given, the more is expected of you. The man with five talents is held to a more rigorous standard than the man with one talent. And so, we see in these places that Peter is the leader not because he chose to be, but because Jesus chose him to be. Every time we hear about the apostles, so there's four different lists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and then Acts, we have four lists of the apostles. Three of them are while Judas is still alive, Judas is always in last place. On all four lists, Peter is always in first place. And then on the 10 in between, there's no consistent There's kind of groups, but there's no consistent pattern. Nobody else is in the same place every time. So, we have an obvious place of dishonor for Judas, and we have an obvious place of honor for Peter. This doesn't look like this is just a guy who talks a lot in class. This looks like the guy who is being put in an authority position and being given explicit [clears throat] instructions about not just feeding the sheep of Jesus, like we see in John 21, we also see him being tasked with strengthening the other leaders of the church here in Luke 22.
So, I'm I'm glad that you brought up those Here's what I would say to the Hebrews 13:1. I don't think we could use Hebrews 13 in the case of Luke 22. Here's why. I think in the obviously in that context, the author of Hebrews is specifically addressing that covenant community and their relation to the elders within that church. Luke 22 doesn't have that and I think that's significant. The second thing I would say is that we see what type of function Peter has as it relates to the apostles. Jesus tells us it is to strengthen your brothers. Now, that's not nothing, right? But it's just not everything in terms of supremacy because to strengthen somebody and I actually have this analogy to give. Let's say I was the CEO of Catholic Answers. Obviously, I don't know who the CEO is of Catholic Answers. Maybe somebody could put it in the comments section.
Chris check. I can I can answer that one.
[laughter]
So, let's say if Chris, you know, he speaks to all Who's the one that's been at Catholic Answers the longest? Is it Trent Horn or is it uh
Uh Jimmy Akin. Jimmy Akin has been uh there I don't remember how many years many many years.
Got you. So, let's say Trent Chris is speaking to you, Jimmy Akin, uh Dr. Carlo, and Trent Horn, right? And he says, "Look, all of y'all in the Catholic apologetic field are going to mess up, right? This is just par for the course. But you know, Jimmy, whenever you mess up, I want you to uh obviously come back, brush yourself off, and go and strengthen your brothers, right? Now, I think everybody recognizing this would see that, okay, Jimmy has a type of prominence, a type of importance among all the other Catholic apologists. Absolutely, there's no dispute about that. He has a unique responsibility um being commissioned here. However, I think we would equally recognize that it would be a grave mistake for Jimmy to go around and say like, "All right, Joe, um I need you to listen to me on this or that issue or whatever the case may be." Um it we would recognize that, okay, wait, wait, uh Jimmy, Chris told you to strengthen us after you have been, you know, restored after, let's say, you went and had a debate, you uh messed up in the debate, whatever the case may be, and then you go and strengthen your your brothers in their apologetical journey. But we would recognize that it would be a stretch to say that, "Oh well, Jimmy is now in a different office and is necessarily than the other Catholic apologists, right?" We would still say he's a Catholic apologist, but he's a more prominent Catholic apologist. Um the last uh analogy I would give is one of like a manager. I see this in the corporate world all the time. I don't know how, you know, ingratiated you were in the corporate world or if you were just put
I mean, I I I was a lawyer for a for about a year and a half. So, I I got to know that. It's It's a different world than, you know, a lot of companies, but
Right.
some white collar kind of stuff.
So, I I was in the managerial side, uh things of that nature. And in the corporate world, you usually see this element where let's say you have a bunch of managers, and one of the managers is tasked with, you know, some additional responsibility. Maybe you are the manager that presents uh the plans or the action steps to the, you know, CEO or to the director or whatever the case. They don't want everybody pre- uh presenting. They want one of the managers, and that manager has a bunch of different responsibilities that are not equal to the other managers, but at the end of the day, he is still another manager. He's a more prominent manager, but he's still a manager. And so, what I'm saying is that uh you know, I think this is what we have here. Like, Peter for sure has uniqueness in responsibility. Uh he is being tasked uh with strengthening his brothers, which again is not nothing. I think that is absolutely telling. Uh but it seems that Jesus falls short of saying that, "Okay, now I want you to govern these apostles." Because you could be a leader well, without necessarily governing somebody. Um you know, I I I think that's the other thing that I'm just pushing us to be a little bit more careful in drawing that line.
I think that that's a perfectly sound objection. Uh the the reason I'm not ultimately persuaded by I think the Jimmy Akin example is a great one, actually. Because even Jimmy is I think his title is senior Catholic apologist, but he isn't just like our direct report or something like that, you know. So, so you're right, you can have a prominence that doesn't immediately translate into a governing sort of authority. In this particular context, Jesus is [clears throat] using the imagery of kingship to describe the kind of leadership he's talking about. And not something like the corporate world. So, I think the analogy or the the reference we should have in making sense of these kind of instructions isn't how would this work in a company, but what does this look like in a kingdom? Uh and that's where I would point there. The other thing is I think this is perfectly valid. You said before a case for the papacy is probably not going to be just one verse. And I think that's true. I think that's true of almost any doctrine. If you said something like, "Okay, I think Jesus is the second person of the Trinity." And somebody said, "Give me a Bible verse that says that." You'd maybe like, "Okay, well, look, Thomas says, 'My Lord and my God.'" And they're going to be like, "It doesn't say anything about a Trinity. It doesn't say second person. It doesn't say, you know." And so, you'd say, "Okay, that's true. You're not going to get every part of the doctrine in in one verse or in one passage. You might have some that are more important parts of the mix, but for almost any doctrine, you're hopefully building from much more than just a single verse. There's usually going to be several things together that create a cohesive picture. So, I think Luke 22 is my favorite single argument, but I think the case is bolstered cuz I think you're right. Someone could see that and say, "Well, we don't know what this looks like when there's a disagreement because this is focused on the sword of servant leadership aspect. And so, does that mean that a a servant leader has binding authority or anything like this? Well, I think when you look at the broader picture, you do get more of that. So, to give just a couple examples, the doors of salvation are opened to the Gentiles by Peter individually. He doesn't wait for all the apostles to decide. God gives him instructions, and then he goes out and does it. And that's in Acts 10. And then in Acts 11, uh when he's confronted about how, you know, how he was able to do this. They say, "Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?" He then describes how he didn't just eat with them, he baptized them.
Mhm.
And um that he says, "If If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who is who was I that I could withstand God?" So, he's claiming divine authority for his actions. And then we're told, "When they heard this, they were silenced. And they glorified God saying, 'Then to the Gentiles also, God has granted repentance unto life.'" Now, later the Judaizers are going to push back and say, "Actually not good enough. They need to hold to, you know, circumcision."
Mhm.
But we see before the Council of Jerusalem, before the church decides on this in a more collective fashion, Peter has individually told us what the right answer is because of the way he's been led individually by God. That looks like something more than just sending us some emails to say like, "Keep up the good work, guys. You know, dust yourself off if a if a debate doesn't go well." This is an actual sort of doctrinal authority where the position of Christianity changes in Acts 10. Prior to Acts 10, non-Jews were not baptized. They This is the first time that it ever happened. There's a massive change, not a contradiction, but there is a change, and this change is brought about by Peter in his individual capacity as an apostle led by God, not something that he has to consult with anybody else on. And nobody else ever does anything remotely similar to that. You know, Paul has this reputation of being a maverick. Paul doesn't do anything like that, where he just says like, "Yeah, we're going to start doing things differently in the church these days." Peter does right here.
Right, right. Um I think that is a a one before I get to Matthew 16:19 here in the obviously accident. I just want to state just, you know, what I think we do have right now is the prominence, uh, primacy, a uniqueness and responsibility in Luke 22. I know we kind of disagree with that. I just wanted to make sure we got that clarified. But moving to Matthew 16
I ask you one one quick question? I think you I think I could probably guess your answer on this, but just to make sure when you say that you're saying a divinely given, like a divinely created prominence for one among the 12. Is that right?
Yes. Mhm. I I
So then the question isn't is there one apostle with a special role? The question's just like what are the limits of this role? Like how papal is the Petrine office? [clears throat] But it seems like we actually agree that biblically there should be something like a Petrine office. There should be one person who has some kind of authority beyond what everybody else has.
Well, what I would say is that what we have in Peter is more responsibility. Now, I would make a distinction in that a greater a level of responsibility does not automatically equal uh difference in office. So, just because somebody has uh a a a more responsibility in this or that aspect, I wouldn't automatically say that they would have a corresponding office. Case in point, if we use some someone like Paul, uh Paul has a unique responsibility, um, to the Gentiles. But I think we wouldn't say that Paul therefore has this other office, right? Um even as his responsibility is contrasted.
verse is maybe a little misunderstood. Like Paul is talking about how his mission territory is the Gentiles. Like he's not arguing, you know, like we just saw Peter is the first to preach to the Gentiles. Peter is the first to do this. And Paul, meanwhile, the first place he goes when he reaches a new town is the synagogue. So, sometimes you'll find I don't think you're necessarily doing this, but sometimes like dispensationalists
will act like, "Well, Peter is in charge of Jewish Christians, Paul is in charge of Gentile Christians." And Paul would have been appalled by that if you read what he says in Romans and Galatians about this is not what we're doing here. Uh, we're we're not remixing or like re-segregating these two groups. This is so, it is a matter of where somebody's focus is in terms of their missionary efforts. And I think that, but yeah, I mean, you're absolutely right that he, he is certainly the apostle to the Gentiles in that sense without being the pope of the Gentiles.
Yeah, and I think that clarification is very, very important because I am definitely not saying that. I mean, Paul himself refutes this where he says there is neither Jew nor Gentile. So, like, you know, uh, but really what Paul is emphasizing there is scope, right? Of their responsibility. Paul has a different scope than, let's say, Peter has, who is said to, you know, um, be uniquely commissioned not just to the church at large, but also to, uh, the Jewish, uh, part of the church. Although all of them encompass one body of Christ. Uh, obviously, as you pointed out in Romans, Paul literally writes to Jews and Gentiles in the Roman church. So, it's not just like his letter is going to, um, oh, yeah, this is for the Gentiles and Jews, you know, you could find your way in there somewhere. Um, but no, but but the the point though is that just because there is a uniqueness in responsibility, that doesn't necessarily mean that there is another unique office. Uh, that's generally my point.
I think that's a good point. I think that's that's fair.
Yeah, we could disagree about like, you know, how that relates to Peter and stuff like that, but at least that's how I would, uh, go about explain it. But I want to go back to your Matthew 16, uh, portion with especially as it relates to Acts chapter 10 because I think this is another area, um, that I think a lot of, I don't want to sound very arrogant here, but I think a lot of Protestants get a little sloppy as it relates to explaining the keys of the kingdom. Um, I've had some very poor, uh, [laughter] e-e-explanations of it. Uh, but this is, I think, a prime example where we see this additional responsibility being given to, uh, Peter because, uh, Catholics are absolutely right in pointing out the obvious, which is that Peter is uniquely given the keys. No other apostle. Cuz I've heard other Protestants say like, "Oh, well, all the apostles have the keys." And it's like, "No." That's not what the text says. The text says Peter is given the keys. Whatever you bind,
Doesn't doesn't say that anywhere.
Exactly. Um, and I, but what I would say in defining what the keys is, and then you'll see this how it relates to Acts chapter 10. Um, one, I think we have to understand how Jesus already taught us to view entrance into the kingdom, right? He says almost a million times, "Repent and believe for the kingdom of heaven is at hand, right?" And, um, if you believe, you will have eternal life. You see this in John 3:16. And so clearly repentance and belief, uh, is how one is to enter into the kingdom. Now, where does this come in with Peter? Well, when Peter takes the keys, right? Um, and we see him using the keys in Acts chapter 2 with the Jews at Pentecost, Acts chapter 8 with the Samaritans, and then Acts chapter 10 with the Gentiles, he is being the instrument that, uh, uh, Christ uses to open the kingdom of heaven to the Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles, which encapsulates the three major people groups in the world at that time. Um, obviously Peter preaches at Pentecost. Uh, the Holy Spirit, you know, descends on the people. They're they're they're saved. They're added to the new covenant community. Same thing with Acts chapter 8. Philip is the one who preaches. But they get word in Jerusalem. Peter and John come down and it is only then that the Holy Spirit descends upon the Samaritans. And then lastly, Peter is uniquely given a vision from the Lord. Obviously, what's very interesting here is Peter is the one trying to resist this. He's like, "Lord, I've never eaten anything unclean." God corrects him. After three times, Peter realizes, "You know what? The reality that that vision was portraying to me is corresponding to the reality of the Gentiles. Right now, he, of course, preaches to Cornelius. They receive the Holy Spirit. The kingdom of God is open to them. And so here we see the keys being open. And each and every one of them, what are the people doing? They're repenting and believing at the sound of hearing the gospel preached in Acts chapter 2 and Acts chapter 10. And then, of course, with Peter laying hands, confirming what heaven has already, uh, declared in regards to how one is to enter the kingdom of of God. So I think it's also very important here to see what this establishes. This establishes Peter's unique responsibility. His prominence in the apostolic ministry because obviously throughout Acts, Peter's not the only one that's preaching. But to your point, Peter is the only one that is finding himself in these unique moments. And so I think this is again reinforcing the prominence, uh, within Peter's ministry, the elevated, uh, level of responsibility, right? Cuz only one person has the keys. Uh, but again, I don't think all of this translates to a different office. I think this just translates to Peter, uh, being tasked with, um, the additional responsibility as this, um, this apostle that Jesus has uniquely set aside for this restored historical redemptive purpose. Um, but what would you say in regards to that?
Yeah, it's common for Protestant exegesis to identify the keys with the preaching. And I think you do a good job of showing the special role that Peter has in being the first to preach to the Jews, to the Samaritans, and to the Gentiles. And you're right to see those as like the three groups, especially in the kind of motif of Acts, where you start with Jerusalem and then go to Judea and Samaria and then go out to all the world. Like this is very much this sort of structure. Uh, you can imagine kind of concentric circles. Uh, my concern is just that this misses the biblical meaning of the keys, that keys are the symbol of royal authority. Uh, and you see this several other places. So, for example, in Revelation 1, uh, Jesus says that he has the keys of death and Hades.
Mhm.
And I don't think that means he's preaching death and Hades. I think that means he has dominion and sovereignty and authority over death and Hades. And likewise in Revelation 3, uh, when we're told the words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens, this is not about preaching David. This is about governance and like Jesus' own authority over the church, over the house of David. Um, there, there is another way keys are used in Revelation particularly where it talks about the key to the bottomless pit and there it does seem to refer to sending people into the abyss. But in these other contexts it seems very clearly to be about authority over, uh, not just proclamation of. Uh, the clearest example is actually in the Old Testament in Isaiah 22. I talk about this in the book, but, uh, it involves Shebna who is head of the household, he was number two to the king. And, uh, worked on the king's behalf and he's being set aside for his wickedness and he's being replaced by Eliakim, uh, the son of Hilkiah. And it says in Isaiah 22 beginning in verse 20, "In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah and I will clothe him with your robe and will bind your girdle upon him and will commit your authority to his hand and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah." Uh, real briefly there, it, cuz we can lose the implications of that. This is a combination of priestly and royal imagery which are not normally combined. So scholars are often very fascinated. He has priestly robes, but he's also to be a father to the people and, uh, has the authority of of royalty. And so then God says, "And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open and none shall shut and he shall shut and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place and he'll become of honor to his father's house." And so that image, like what is being promised there? It's not about preaching. It's not about he's going to be the first one to preach David, uh, to the people. That no, he's actually being entrusted with an important role in royal government and he's also got the high priesthood. Uh, and so we see that kind of played out elsewhere in scripture. So like 2 Kings 18 when Sennacherib comes up, they called for the king. There came out to them Eliakim the son of Hilkiah. Now, Eliakim is not the king, but he's able to act on behalf of the king. He's a representative, or if you want to use the Catholic term for it, he's the vicar of the king. So, that's kind of the idea. So, yes, we would we would agree about the the preaching and this, you know, if we want to say it in our language, kind of unlocks the gospel in a certain sense. That's great. But, if we want to understand what the key image means, I think we need to read it through the Jewish context with places like Isaiah 22 and Revelation 1. And there it, it has something much more that it is saying. There's also other, I mean, without going into all of this, like the Targum on Isaiah talks about that this is the key of the sanctuary house and the rule of the house of David. So, they, this is the Jewish understanding of the meaning of the keys when you read like rabbinical commentaries of Isaiah 22.
So, in response to your, your point, I definitely see what you're getting at there. One of the things I think we would find a common agreement is that the keys at least at the bare minimum represents, you know, authority. Right? So, in every single context that you mentioned, whether it be Jesus with Hades, whether it be Peter here with the keys to the kingdom, whether it be with Eliakim, every single one of them, one of those passages signals authority. Now, what type of authority, the scope of authority is, I think determined by the context. So, in a case of Eliakim, Eliakim is not, uh, now the ruler over the kingdom. Right? Um, he doesn't just get to say like, "Oh yeah, you get to come into the kingdom. This other person doesn't get to come into the kingdom." By his own will, right? Obviously, whatever he does is in a derivative sense to what the king has already determined, but he is given real authority to act on behalf of the king. And I think it's a similar thing with Peter with the keys of the kingdom. And this is why I started by saying, you know, how does Jesus talk about entrance into the kingdom? Well, it's by repentance and belief. And so, when Peter sees this, right? This, this, this true repentance and belief. And the best place to see this is in Acts chapter 8, right? Because again, Philip is the one who preaches the gospel, right? So, I don't necessarily think that the keys is just gospel proclamation, but I think it's actual authority that Peter is being given to open the kingdom of heaven based on what Christ has already said is how one must enter. And so, when he sees the Samaritans repent and believe, Peter does exactly what he's instructed to do, what he's being commissioned to do, and he lays hands on them so that the kingdom of God is then open, right? And so, that's why I would say is the more fuller explanation to, to that to that response. But yeah, what would you say to that?
Yeah, I, I think that makes a lot of sense in, in certain ways. The, the it is certainly something more than the proclamation. Um, and it certainly implies some kind of authority. I would maybe couple that even with the, I don't know if you notice in Isaiah 22:22, "I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David." You might be wondering why the key is on the shoulder. It's not a normal place to carry your keys. Uh, because this is the image of bearing the authority. So, earlier in Isaiah, you have the famous Christmas passage, Isaiah 9.
Mhm.
"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given and the government will be upon his shoulder and his name will be called wonderful counselor, mighty God, everlasting father, prince of peace." That it is about bearing royal authority. So Peter, you're right, is not the king, but he nevertheless, or excuse me, Eliakim is not the king, but he bears royal authority and acts on behalf of the king. Well, in the New Testament, Peter is in a similar sort of spot of he is not the king of kings, but he is the one who is acting on his behalf. Now, um, the question then becomes something you said very briefly in passing there. In the case of the one bearing this, the, the head of the household in the house of David, is he only doing things that the king has already told him or does he have the authority to bind the things that the king hasn't given explicit instructions on?
One of the things I absolutely love about the LSB and the NASB, two different Bible translations, is I think they have the correct rendering of this. You may be familiar with this where in many of our modern translations it says, "Whatever you bind on Earth, I think shall be bound in heaven." Or something along those lines. And the LSB renders it, and I think this is more faithful to the actual meaning where it says, "Whatever you bind on Earth shall have been bound in heaven." Now, we could disagree about which one is the more faithful translation. I think at its core though, we would all agree, um, as far as I understand Catholic theology, that, you know, a pope isn't necessarily, or even Peter isn't necessarily just saying that, "Hey, you need to do this thing because I, even being moved by the Holy Spirit, is saying that you, you to do those things." For instance, I'll even liken this to another example. When you look at, uh, you know, maybe Acts chapter 2, with the Pentecost, what is Peter grounding that reality of what's happening in? Well, he grounds it in prior revelation. Um, I, I use this phraseology that it is heaven that, uh, declares the verdict first and then, uh, Earth that echoes that verdict, right? Um, and so Peter's role is to echo heaven's verdict, right? God already told us in places like Amos and Joel, things of that nature, that this was going to happen. Pentecost is not a, um, you know, something new and anything like that. In fact, the apostles often labor very hard in saying that the gospel that they have received is not some new revelation, but has been prophesied of old. Now, granted, has it been equally as clear as the New Testament is? No, it was more likely in seed form, but nevertheless, their arguing, their argument is that it was in scripture first before it ever proceeded out of our mouths. And so, I think that's the case with Acts chapter 2. Even in Acts chapter 10, Peter is reasoning from not only prior revelation, uh, that with his vision, but he sees and you can see this more fully in Acts chapter 15, like how are they, uh, how are they grounding their determination in? Well, it's not because they said, "This seems just good with us." Yes, that verse does appear, but they ground it in what has happened in Acts chapter 10. They ground it in, uh, James mentions, uh, a passage in Amos. And so, the reason why the New Testament is kind of littered, I, I think there's this like image where you see a bunch of like Bible references between like the New Testament and it's like cross-references to this passage in Old Testament. The reason why you see that is because the New Testament, this is what it means that the New Testament is a fulfillment of the old. Um, and so, uh, Jesus has already made it explicit in his ministry, uh, especially in a place like Matthew chapter 5, and I'll stop after this, that part of Jesus' ministry was to fulfill the law and the prophets. Uh, that word fulfill there is very important because however you understand what happens to the prophets is however you understand what happens to the law, which that's shorthand for the old covenant. Um, and so just as the prophets, uh, the prophecies, the Messianic prophecies are being fulfilled, being brought to its completion, so will the Mosaic covenant, which is the old covenant, be brought to its completion. Um, uh, and so the apostles are coming to that reality now. What would you say to that?
So I'd say this. I think the, cuz you, you mentioned to a grammatical issue, um, a moment ago. And this is one of the things I talk about in Pope Peter, that this is often raised by Protestant exegetes. Now, to be fair, most Protestant translations, the KJV, the NKJV, the RSV, the NRSV, the ESV, the NIV, the NLT, all of them are going to have some version of "whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in heaven." Because the question is what to do with Matthew 16. In verse 19, Jesus says, and this is what most translations are going to have, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven." But as you point out, there are some Protestants who argue that this is a bad translation, that it instead should be that "whatever Peter binds on Earth shall have been bound in heaven," with the understanding that heaven's prior decision is later ratified by the church. That's the language of Benjamin Merkel. Um, and the problem with this is is twofold. One of the problems with this is on a grammatical ground because this is assuming that, uh, Matthew 16:19 uses a verb form called the future perfect. And the future perfect is actually never used in the New Testament. So, it would require you to read, uh, the grammar of Matthew 16:19 the way that doesn't match the grammar of anywhere in the New Testament. Uh, that instead we have what's called the periphrastic future perfect. It's only used like four times and every time it's used in the New Testament it expresses a future state. So, the reason the overwhelming majority of Bibles, like almost all Bibles, Protestant, Catholic, whatever, say "whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in heaven" is that's actually a better grammatical reading. And it's particularly certain Protestants who are uncomfortable with the theology of what Jesus is saying that have pushed for this really unusual rendering of of the verbiage. So, you have people like Grant Osborne who, who basically acknowledge this outright. He says, "The more recent appraisal of the perfect tense shows that it often does not have past time sense but rather is stative in force. Thus, emphasizing the present and future aspect will be bound, will be loosed." So, some make God's decision subsequent, thus ratifying Peter's {slash} the church's decision. Surely, this cannot be correct as if God is bound to accept the church's decisions. So, he's clear that his argument is not actually a grammatical one. It's that in his theology he's not comfortable with the idea that Peter or a pope or anybody else could say and do a thing that heaven will ratify. That surely it must not mean what it says when Jesus says "whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on Earth will be loosed in heaven." Now, to this I would say monkeying with the grammar of the Bible as, as these Protestants do doesn't actually solve the problem. Because whether you say "whatever Peter says will be bound in heaven" or "whatever God says Peter is going to say on Earth," either way you have the same conclusion. That when you hear the words of Peter, you are hearing the decree of heaven. What he is binding is bound. What he is loosing is loosed. The causality of it, whether it's because he said it, it's true, or because it's true, he said it, is not completely irrelevant, but it's functionally irrelevant. Because the issue is that for many Protestants, they think that what Peter and his successors have said might be wrong. And if it can be wrong, if the Pope can exercise binding and loosening in a way that it doesn't agree with heaven, then Matthew 16:19 means nothing. Because if Jesus is just saying, um, "whatever you bind on Earth might be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on Earth might be loosed in heaven," there's no authority there. That, that is a meaningless kind of authority. Jesus could have spared his breath and and not given anything. Because if all he's saying is, "If you happen to be right, you're right." Okay, yeah, we already knew that. That's nothing. Uh, if you want a good piece on this from a Jewish perspective, again, I think it's a good way to make sense of when you see these idioms like keys or binding and loosening, these kind of things. Rabbi Kaufman Kohler talks about binding and loosening in the Jewish Encyclopedia article on that, where he looks at how this imagery was used for creating basically rabbinical instruction. So, if there's something like, well, you're not allowed to work on the Sabbath, the leaders of the people could determine what was and wasn't working on the Sabbath, and they could bind you to do a certain thing or loose you to say you're permitted to do a certain thing. So, that, that's what it means to say to bind or to loose. And, um, yeah, so anyway, all that is to say, read through the Jewish lens, we should do two things. One, we should interpret the binding and loosing given to Peter as a real interpretive authority, because that's what it means. And two, we should recognize that it's a real interpretive authority, where it's not just you have the authority to bind and loosen, but it's that you have the authority to bind and loosen and heaven and Peter's decisions are going to match. If we just put it in that way, we can avoid the whole debate about verb tenses and just say whatever Peter binds on Earth, heaven has also or will also bind. And, and this gets us to a place of a very strong, uh, proclamation of of Peter's unique interpretive authority.
So, I hear what you're saying. However, my question to you is this. Do we agree on the principle that Peter isn't necessarily doing like he's doing something new as it relates to the time in history that, uh, he's operating in, but as it relates to, uh, why he's doing it, he is fulfilling what has already been foretold and prophesied by Jesus and the apostles? Do we agree on that principle or no? As it relates to bind and loosen.
Yeah, so broadly speaking, yes. Like certainly the, yeah, the, the basic message of the gospel is foretold in the Old Testament. The New Testament has a lot of details you're not going to get from the Old Testament alone. The New Testament fleshes those things out. But the binding and loosing authority Peter has includes a lot of day-to-day authority to run the church. And if you, if you think about running even a local church, but especially a global church, there's a lot of day-to-day stuff where you say, "Well, how are we going to do X, Y, and Z?" And on many, even most, of those issues, we're not dealing with issues of dogma, and we're not dealing with things where we've been given some explicit instruction by Jesus. But somebody needs the authority to make those decisions. So, even if you go to like a little church of 20 people, and you guys have church services at 9:30 in the morning, somebody had to have the authority to decide that church services were going to be at 9:30 instead of 9. So, there's always that kind of question of what does this look like? What does our liturgical calendar look like? This is an an important issue that the early church, uh, talked about, even fought about. Uh, what do, uh, what do we view as the issues of doctrine that are non-negotiable, everyone has to agree with, and what are things people should be free to disagree? Those are all really important issues, and there is not just one biblical answer to that question, such that you couldn't possibly come up with a, a different answer. So, that's why, and so, in terms of the broad, like the proclamation of the gospel things, absolutely. This is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets. This isn't some deviation from the Old Testament, it's the fulfillment of it. But a lot of what is meant by the keys and the binding and loosing is the day-to-day authority in the church, and that's something that Peter, we, we see given this kind of prerogative and authority.
Okay. Um, well, I appreciate your answer there. I think we've come up to the time. I appreciate you, Joe, for working with me. For those who don't know that we had a lot of technical issues, Joe's been very patient working the working out all of them with me. Uh, I promise that if we do so happen to do this again, we will have hopefully we can come up, um, and hop right back off where we left off here. But, you know, again, thank you, Joe. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank thank you. I cannot thank you enough for this conversation. But hopefully we get to do it on, uh, maybe on the same topic but just a part two, or on another topic somewhere down, down, down the line in the future. I felt like this,
Yeah, I, I really enjoyed talking to you, Jinnai, and I maybe we can let people in the comments tell us if they want to hear more on the papacy or, you know, I've, I've got a book on the early church as well, or we can talk about the Eucharist or any number of things. I mean, I don't want to dictate it, but if people have things they really want to see, I think you are, you're a good guy doing a, a good work of trying to give a fair and charitable hearing to this, and I'm happy to play whatever role in that I can.
Absolutely. Well, I appreciate it, guys. Thank you for watching the Lisa Sue's podcast, but until next time, guys, peace.