Jesus's Prophecies

From the Gospel of Mark:

And Jesus answering them, began to say "Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am He,' and will deceive many. But when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be troubled; for such things must happen, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be earthquakes in various places, and there will be famines and troubles. These are the beginnings of sorrows.

"But watch out for yourselves, for they will deliver you up to councils, and you will be beaten in the synagogues. You will be brought before rulers and kings for My sake, for a testimony to them. And the gospel must first be preached to all the nations. But when they arrest you and deliver you up, do not worry beforehand, or premeditate what you will speak. But whatever is given you in that hour, speak that; for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. Now brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. And you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.

"So when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not," (let the reader understand), "then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let him who is on the housetop not go down into the house, nor enter to take anything out of his house, and let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those nursing babies in those days! And pray that your flight may not be in winter. For in those days there will be tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of creation which God created until this time, nor ever shall be. And unless the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake, whom He chose, He shortened the days.

"Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'Look, He is there!', do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. But take heed; see, I have told you all things beforehand. But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars of heaven will fall, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send His angels, and gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest part of earth to the farthest part of heaven.

"Now learn from this parable of the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender, and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. So you also, when you see these things happening, know that it is near-- at the doors! Assuredly I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Mark 13: 5-31)

One of the troubling things about early Christianity is that you get the sense that many or most early Christians believed in an imminent end of the world. Of course, 2000 years later, the end of the world still has not occurred. Is this a problem for Christians? What makes it seem more embarrassing is that these prophecies came from Jesus himself. Moreover, he provides a timeline: this generation shall by no means pass away, till all these things take place. "This generation," that is, the generation of his disciples, already adults in 33 A.D., would have lived to 100 A.D. or a little later, at the most.

However, many of the above prophecies seem to have described events that took place within a couple of decades after Jesus's death, especially the Jewish rebellion that led to the destruction of Jerusalem. If the phrase "This generation shall not pass away..." refers only to those events-- distant for us but a real apocalypse for Jews who saw their peculiar religious nation smashed by the overwhelming force of the Roman legions after a thousand years-- then the chronology is not problematic. Is it just a matter of a few phrases out of order, or a somewhat confusing reference in the term "all these things come to pass?"  That, of course, would place "the sun will be darkened" in the future.

Whatever else one may say, the passage is striking, exhilarating, spectacular-- and perhaps that impression is more useful than an attempt to map it onto chronology, for those of us who find it hard to understand.  It dispels complacency; it evokes a sense of wonder; it is a reminder of the fragility and impermanence of this world.  For each of us, after all, there is at least one apocalypse in store: death.

I am struck by the phrase "pray that your flight will not be in winter." Why pray if the events are predetermined? It is as if Jesus foresaw the general outlines of the coming events, but certain details remained indeterminate, such as what season it would be when the destruction of Jerusalem would occur. Also, the phrase "of that day and hour, no one knows, not even the angels in Heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" seems to have theological implications. Can the Father know things that the Son does not?

Near the end of the Gospel of John there is a text which is unusual in that, instead of merely telling the story, it makes mention of an opinion that formed later:

Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following... said to Jesus, "What about this man?" Jesus said to him, "If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?" 

Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, "If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?" (John 21: 21-22)

Thus John goes out of his way to suggest that his fellow Christians were jumping to conclusions about the meaning of Jesus's words concerning him ['the disciple Jesus loved' is John himself]. Was this unusual digression meant as a dissent from the widespread expectations of imminent apocalypse among the early Christians? If Jesus did not mean to say John would live till Jesus came again, the motive for Jesus's words about John are not quite clear to me. Clearly Jesus doesn't think Peter needs to know what will happen to John, that is why He says, "what is that to you?" We are to love one another; but idle curiosity about the lives of others is a distraction and a temptation to envy. Still, why does Jesus make the suggestive remark about John surviving till Jesus comes?

One thing at least is known: John outlived Peter. From Peter's point of view, then, did Jesus's words prove true? That is, John was still living when Peter was reunited with his Lord? But I am wandering, writing of what I do not understand. Divine foreknowledge is full of mysteries.

Comments

[Jim]

Here is a challenge for a free thinker - the opportunity to stand corrected. When the Bible urges the readers of scripture to "prove all things" it certainly was not suggesting that they should look to the hearsay of men as their standard of truth but, rather, in accord with Ps. 118:8 they should look to scripture and trust the authority of God's word -- and not the traditions of men which may be added to that word. With that in mind, what happens when one subjects this claim from the article above to biblical scrutiny -- Claim: "'the disciple Jesus loved' is John himself" -- will it hold up?

The truth is no one has ever cited a single verse that would justify teaching that the unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" was John -- not those who originated this unbiblical teaching and not those who repeat their error to this day. (That is why no such verse was cited to support this claim, nor is one ever cited by those who promote the man-made, unbiblical John tradition, because no such verse exists.)

But one thing can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the biblical evidence actually can prove that WHOEVER the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" was he could not have been John -- because that idea forces the Bible to contradict itself, which the truth cannot do. Those who are interested can see the presentation of Bible evidence on this question in the free eBook that is posted online at thegospelofjohn.com -- just scripture, no hearsay from non-Bible sources.

Two good rules of respect for the authority of God's word: A) One should not be presenting an idea AS IF IT WERE BIBLICAL if they cannot cite a single verse that would justify teaching that idea - and - B) If the facts in the plain text of scripture prove that an idea is false, then those who love the truth will reject that false idea -- no matter how many people believe it, no matter how loud some may shout it, no matter if a big-wig so-and-so believes it, no matter how long the false idea has been around, etc.

Still, while there is not a single verse that would justify teaching the idea that John was the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved", people continue to make unbiblical claims and use non-Bible hearsay and circular logic to sell idea that the unbiblical man-made John tradition can be made to fit with scripture. But that idea simply comes from men adding to the scriptures (the title Gospel of John was never part of the original text - it was added by men long after the anonymous author's death), and from others assuming that the men who added the John title to the fourth gospel cannot be wrong. This is why repetition of hearsay from non-Bible sources must be used to sell the John tradition, because the Bible proves the John tradition is false. One can pick and choose their favorite non-Bible source to cite as a reason why they believe the idea that the unnamed "other disciple whom Jesus loved" was John. But what no one has ever done is cite a single verse that would justify teaching that this person was John -- not those who originated this unbiblical teaching and not those who repeat their error to this day.

[Tom]

There is an alternative to contortions of logic and interpretation: the bible is fallible.

[Nathan Smith]

I'm not sure what is meant by "the Bible is fallible." If I were told that a map of Washington, DC is fallible, I would know what that means, because I know what it is for a map to be perfectly accurate. The Bible is a more complex text. Jesus told many stories which were (as far as I know) not, and (it seems clear) were not intended to be taken as, literally true. These are called "parables." Does that make the Bible fallible? The criterion applied seems nonsensical.

To Jim: Psalm 118:8 says "It is better to put one's trust in God than to put confidence in man." This doesn't have any obvious connection to which texts one should regard as authoritative or in what sense or to what degree, or how much respect should be given to oral and other traditions. It is clear, though, that it could not possibly be an exhortation to "look to scripture and trust the authority of God's word" by rejecting "unbiblical" traditions... since the Bible didn't exist at the time that Psalm 118 was written! The Bible was compiled later, *by the Church.* Why should we believe the Bible if we don't believe in the Church and its traditions? This is not an epistemological position that makes sense.

[sds]

"The Bible was compiled later, *by the Church.* Why should we believe the Bible if we don't believe in the Church and its traditions? This is not an epistemological position that makes sense."

This is a familiar argument, but it seems to me less than compelling. Believing in the Church and its traditions is one reason that someone might have for believing in the scripture that the Church and its traditions have delivered to us. But why should this be the only reason? Or even a necessary reason? There might be various other sorts of reasons-- based on internal qualities of a book, or historical support, or (in the case of a scripture) "spiritual" confirmation-- other than the institution through which the book has been received. Or someone might put faith in the scripture based on some combination of these things. Someone can believe that there is truth and maybe even inspired or prophetic teaching in, say, the Dead Sea scrolls even though these were just stumbled upon by some shepherd boy. People can accept the authenticity, truth, and wisdom of various books without knowing just how they were received. So why should one's faith in the Bible necessarily depend upon trusting in the process of institution by which it was obtained?

[Tom]

All language is intended to communicate, and the bible is no exception. However, for something to be communicated and accurately interpreted by an interlocutor, there has to be a certain agreement on the meaning of terms, idioms, metaphors, etc. Perhaps there is an interpretation of the bible that is 100% true and accurate and non-contradictory (plausible perhaps, though unlikely), but 1) that interpretation was not necessarily intended to be communicated, and 2) the likelihood of people stumbling upon it and agreeing with it is close to 0% I'm guessing. This seems obvious when one considers all of the different sects of Christianity that interpret the bible differently.

When communication through text is so fraught with inconsistency of interpretation, should one blame the reader or the text or both? A person who answers a correctly written math problem wrong is at fault. A math problem plagued with ambiguity may lead to someone getting the right answer, but if someone gets the wrong answer shouldn't we blame the problem and not the person? This is why I think "the bible is fallible", because all too often people get it wrong.

[nato]

Proponents of the Quran's miraculousness make much of the Quran's putative anachronistic scientific accuracy, and I would find these to be quite good evidence of there being something very special about the Quran, if I found these accounts convincing. Likewise, various numerologists come up with elaborate mathematical relationships to be found in the Bible, and if they found some consistent, unambiguous pattern that would be essentially impossible to generate without computers or very advanced theorems, then that, too would be pretty convincing evidence of the Bible being a very unusual book in a manner far more substantial than "mere" historical contingency.

However, I think that absent such unfakeable internal evidence, one must rely on analysis of empirical facts to establish the authority of a text*, or perhaps direct revelation if your personal epistemology allows for that.

*Unless one is showing that a text *could not* be authoritative - that requires only demonstrating something internally inconsistent, logically impossible or otherwise undeniably false.

[Nathan Smith]

SDS and Jim seem to regard the Bible is true in quite different ways and/or degrees. One could, of course, "believe that there is truth" in the Bible without even believing in God. One could also believe that the Bible *contains* "inspired or prophetic teaching" based on, say, "'spiritual' confirmation," without this providing much justification for the belief that the Bible *as a whole* is true. SDS's remark about the Dead Sea scrolls seems to point to a model where each believer has a customized Bible of books that he regards as prophetic or inspired, which may include some parts of the Bible, but not all, and other extra-biblical texts as well.

But it should be noted that no Christian church seems to operate this way. Compare and contrast the way the Bible is quoted in churches with the way Aristotle, or Aquinas, or Adam Smith, might be quoted in an academic conference. The academics quote famous figures with respect; it strengthens an argument to show that one has such friends in high places; but the greats can also be gently corrected, deliberately modified, or vigorously contradicted. Not so the Bible in a church. It is quoted in order to inspire, to be adhered to, obeyed. It is quoted with a presumption of agreement on the part of believers. Even when a believer confesses his failure to understand a Biblical passage he will not-- not in church, at least-- deny it. This practice seems to presume a sort of generic truth of everything in the Bible, at least under the right interpretation (to which Tom might give the clever-obtuse answer that the same may be said of all texts if sufficient latitude is given to interpretation, but that is to detach the idea of interpretation from common sense in a way that a defender of the truth of the Bible does not need to do). And it is hard to see how that presumption can be justified without some belief in the institution that compiled the Bible. The Bible has many authors, many genres and styles, it was written at many times and for many purposes. Many Christians have felt spiritual confirmation of this or that book or passage; probably almost none have felt spiritual confirmation of every separate bit of writing that is included in the collection. If you've found truth on pages 694, 781, and 932 of the Bible, and you take that as evidence that statements relevant to your life on pages 126 and 1103 are probably also true and deserve to be obeyed, this deduction doesn't seem to make sense unless you have some confidence in whoever or whatever compiled the book.

Biblical literalists seem to think that whoever or whatever is God. I agree. But a more proximate whoever or whatever is: the Church. To that extent, a tacit belief in the Church as the Body of Christ seems still to be implicit in the Protestant practice of reading the Bible as an authoritative text.

[sds]

Imagine two claims-- what we might call the strong Bible claim (SBC) and the strong Church claim SCC). SBC asserts that the Bible in its entirely is wholly the reliable word of God. SCC asserts, basically (and probably with a few qualifications or interpretive explanations), that "the Church" is a wholly trustworthy, divinely-directed institution.

Two caveats: First, I may not have stated these claims in the best possible way-- as Nathan suggests, these aren't my beliefs-- but I've tried to be fair. Second, SCC acquiesces in treating "the Church" as a unitary institution spanning the centuries. I take it that people against whom Nathan's argument is directed will often doubt this. But let this complication pass, so we can get on with the argument.

If I understand correctly, Nathan is saying basically that someone can't assert SBC without accepting or presupposing something like SCC, so that people (including many Protestants) who try to do that are being inconsistent. But I still don't see why.

SBC might be derived from SCC. But I can't see why it needs to be. People who believe in the Bible in a strong sense might-- and do-- give all sorts of reasons (often including divine inspiration) other than SCC. Those reasons might be enough to warrant SBC.

If SBC needn't be derived from SCC, does it nonetheless entail SCC? But once again, it's hard to see why. Indeed, the Bible itself often describes situations in which the word of God is conveyed through very fallible, error-prone human messengers.

And if SBC needn't be derived from SCC and also doesn't entail SCC, then it's hard to say that SBC "presupposes" SCC.

Again, I agree that SCC might give someone a reason to accept SBC. Also, SBC might provide support for SCC. But it still seems possible, and not inconsistent, for someone to assert SBC but reject SCC.

[Tom]

"(to which Tom might give the clever-obtuse answer that the same may be said of all texts if sufficient latitude is given to interpretation, but that is to detach the idea of interpretation from common sense in a way that a defender of the truth of the Bible does not need to do)"

This statement is ironic given Nathan's hyper-skepticism of knowledge claims. Is it correct, though, that were I to make such a point as Nathan accurately supposes, that the idea of interpretation would be detached from common sense? People have seen "signs" in the broadest range of places in all ages of Humanity. There is a powerful free association, a poetry of the mind that is able to see hidden messages and mysteries in the miasma of existence. Occasionally, this poetry reflects something fundamental, but usually it is a self-reflection, a whimsical aspect of cognition. Science is the field of validating/reinforcing interpretation of what's fundamental; it is a tightly refined poetry. Interpretations of the bible say more about the interpreter than they do about reality.

[Nathan Smith]

re: "SBC might be derived from SCC. But I can't see why it needs to be. People who believe in the Bible in a strong sense might-- and do-- give all sorts of reasons (often including divine inspiration) other than SCC."

Now, I wouldn't exactly want to claim that "someone can't assert SBC without accepting or presupposing something like SCC." Suppose we frame a weaker claim for the Church, (WCC) e.g., "the churches which today claim direct descent from the early Church are not infallible, but on the contrary seem to be vitiated by a good deal of corruption and error; and the early Church probably wasn't infallible either; but it had enough divine guidance to assemble the Bible correctly." You could maybe base SBC on WCC. Maybe that's a little tenuous...

Anyway, I'm not sure I buy SDS's "all sorts of reasons" claim. In particular, "divine inspiration" seems to beg the question. *Who* is supposed to have been divinely inspired? The original authors, yes, Isaiah and John and Paul etc., but that's not enough. Someone had to choose what books to include and exclude. That someone was the early Church. Wouldn't it require divine inspiration *of the early Church* to get that decision right? To say that "But the Church compiled the Bible!" is a refutation of *sola scriptura* Protestantism would be going too far, but basic historical reasoning does at least, it seems to me, put it in an awkward place. Jim is a sort of *reductio ad absurdum* of the Protestant position, with his simultaneous insistence on the absolute truth of every word of the Bible and his scornful rejection of any kind of tradition.

[Joyless Moralist]

Just to add a remark to this thread... while I agree that you can't quite get anything as strong as a logical entailment between SDS' two claims, it does seem worth noting that Christ never sat down and wrote/dictated a book, while on the other hand he *did* give serious attention to the organization of a church. And then, later on, it was an organization (hopefully the same one in a meaningful sense) that compiled the book. One *could* try to argue, say, that the organization Christ founded fell apart, then perhaps enjoyed a brief period of inspiration long enough to compile the book, and then fell apart again. But this does seem to be curiously out of step with the tone of the Gospels, and the focus of Christ's own labors.

[Nathan Smith]

JM makes a good point I hadn't thought of, although I think a Protestant (or even a secularist) would argue, with some reason, that it's far from obvious that Christ "gave serious attention to the organization of a church." According to a footnote in my NIV, the word "church" is only mentioned in one of the four Gospels, Matthew, and Matthew only mentions it twice. My NIV also suggests the following etymology of the word "church":

"In Greek circles of Jesus' day it indicated the assembly of free, voting citizens in a city..."

Fascinating. The Greek *polis* was an institution quite distinct from the Oriental empires, and often without a king. It was distinct, too, from the Jewish kingdoms of the past. This seems, then, to be an example of the fusion of Greek and Hebraic elements at the level of organization, as occurred more famously at the level of theology.

Anyway, Biblical critics might be inclined to doubt that the mentions of the Church are authentic sayings of Jesus, suggesting rather that they were inserted later to justify institutional developments. Although I tend to be very suspicious of "textual" Biblical criticism (as opposed to Biblical criticism based on genuine historical or archeological evidence), I don't think this claim is particularly subversive. If Christians came to use a word derived from the experience of the Greek *polis* to describe the organization that was emerging, and then Matthew (but not the other Evangelists) retrospectively put this slghtly anachronistic word in Jesus's mouth when quoting teachings that dealt with how Christians should self-organize and deal with each other, it would not really compromise the veracity of the text. On the other hand, it doesn't seem at all unlikely, and I would lean strongly towards this supposition, that Jesus really did use the word in those cases. Still, the disciples could hardly have understood the word in the same sense we understand it now.

Far richer are the descriptions in the Gospel of John of what the Christian community should be, e.g., "I am the vine and you are the branches... My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you..." And: "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you..." All in all, I'm not sure that Jesus gave serious attention to organizing a church exactly. What He did was create a community of loving disciples, but this community did need some sort of superstructure, which emerged naturally with apostolic leadership and later took the form of bishops and priests and deacons etc. However, there has always been a distinction between the formal, decision-making hierarchy and the patterns of holiness and emulation that form within the loving community of Christians. Patriarchs and emperors have been overruled by the silent majority of Christians, as in the Nestorian or the Iconoclast controversy, and the great spiritual innovations generally have obscure origins. No one knows the origins of Christian monasticism, for example, and St. Anthony and St. Benedict were not Church hierarchs when they set the precedents that shaped Christian monasticism for centuries.

[Nathan Smith]

Did Christ wish to inscribe his message on paper or instill it in the human heart? Well, of course he could do, and indirectly, did, both; but what was his priority? For some purposes paper is a more reliable medium, but it is mechanical, limited, even biased in a way-- think of the difference between reading about something and experiencing it-- and I think we all have the intuition that the human heart is a better carrier of truth, with paper documents as a mere aid.

The sad thing about the Protestants is that they might even be ready to accept that Christ wanted a loving community, not a mere text, as the carrier of his message. But they think that the community of Christians, the church, became so hopelessly corrupted that it is necessary to fall back on a text, as a means of, as it were, teleporting back to the early Church, to a time before corruption had set in. And of course, from the Orthodox point of view, they were partly right: the indulgence-selling, Inquisitorial Catholic Church of the 15th-century West, self-alienated from the Orthodox East for four and a half centuries, steeped in Aristotelian logic, and blood-stained in its pursuit of temporal power, had become so corrupt that it was an impediment to Christianity. The Bible was a way of teleporting, as it were, back to the 3rd century. And maybe, if the Protestants were right that the true Church had perished from the earth, the desperate expedient of trying to re-found it, even without the second Incarnation which might seem to be necessary for such a feat, would be the best course that could be attempted.

But the true Church had not passed from the earth. It still existed, albeit under the yoke of the Tartar and the Turk, in the east.

[Jim]

Erudite, sophisticated, and highly educated people are not necessarily unimaginative, as can be seen by the imagination that is reflected in the numerous fanciful straw men and other logical loopholes that were put forth in order to change the subject and avoid the issue while seeming to deal with it. But, in fact, their lips betray them, because all of the words that they put forth simply prove the point made in the first comment posted above. For it is axiomatic that in order for a teaching to be biblical there must be a biblical justification for teaching that idea.

Surely the easiest way for one to disprove the following claim - Claim: there is not a single verse that would justify teaching the idea that John was the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" - is not to cite non-Bible sources or craft wily arguments, but simply to quote a verse of scripture. But the reason that those who prefer to cling to the unbiblical John tradition have to change the subject, is because they realize that they cannot cite single verse of scripture that would justify teaching the John tradition – and hence in all of their rhetorical efforts to avoid the light of scripture they actually prove the point that was made (that being that those who promote the John tradition cannot cite a single verse that would justify promoting that idea).

Moreover, to argue against a self-evident truth while convincing yourself that you are being reasonable surely takes an extremely vivid imagination, indeed. And it is certainly should be self-evident that it would be the very definition of a false presentation for a person to be presenting an idea AS IF IT WERE BIBLICAL (attention to detail is important here, note the word BIBLICAL, i.e., that which is of the Bible) if that person cannot cite a single verse of scripture that would justify promoting that idea. And of all the false ideas that have been promoted in the history of the world, no false idea ever became true simply because the people that promoted those ideas believed that they were true, nor would the truth status of a false idea be changed simply because a lot of people could be convinced that it was a true idea.
While those who promote the unbiblical, man-made John tradition may be ignorant of the fact that the words in the plain text of scripture can prove that this tradition is false, it is foolish to try to deny that the Bible is the primary source when it comes to the measure of what is or is not biblical. And for one who claims to believe and respect scripture as the word of God to continue to present ANY idea AS IF IT WAS BIBLICAL.

What many fail to realize is that just because something is a “tradition” does not mean it is either true or biblical, as can be shown by just a single verse of scripture – "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered…" So for someone to pretend that gaining the status of “tradition” means that idea must be true and accepted without question (and more importantly without biblical justification), is to be like so many blind follower of blind leaders who simply choose to follow the herd. Since the Bible can prove that being “tradition” does not mean that idea comports with the word of God, one would need to test a “tradition” by the word of God to know if a given tradition was biblical or not. Hence God's word admonishes the readers of scripture to "Prove all things".
 
PS - re: the supposed refutation of PS. 118:8 by Nathan Smith, my explicit reference to the authority of God's word should have been enough to make it clear that those who claim to believe and respect the Bible as the word of God are, unless they want to be hypocritical, required to weight the ideas that they believe about biblical matters by the words of scripture first and foremost. And since those who do not claim to respect the Bible as the word of God grant themselves artistic license to pick and choose what they want to believe regardless of what scripture says, my words were clearly not addressed to those in that group, including the quote of Ps. 118:8. So his straw man was built on a basic category mistake.

[Joyless Moralist]

"For it is axiomatic that in order for a teaching to be biblical there must be a biblical justification for teaching that idea."

Well... yes. That is a truism. The trouble with truisms is that they don't explain anything. Your reasoning seems to rely on a couple of assumptions that I would reject. In the first place, you seem to be assuming that the Bible is self-justifying, and in the second, you seem to take it that it is self-explanatory. Neither seems true to me.

On the first point, the question to be asked is: why believe in the Bible at all? It seems to me that faith in the Bible is appropriately linked to association with a tradition. Now, as SDS points out, it isn't *logically necessary* that this should be the case, and people have historically proposed other means of gaining faith in the Bible (being spontaneously moved by the Holy Spirit, for example.) Still, the association seems eminently reasonable, for reasons that we've been discussing. The Bible was actually *yielded* to us, not by Christ's own hand, but by a body of men who got together some time after Christ's ascension and sat down and decided which books should be included and which should not. If you think the Bible is infallible, it seems that the organization must have been divinely inspired/directed at least for a little while, and that naturally leads us into speculation about why that was so, and what happened before and afterwards. But in any case, if one wishes to make strong claims about the truth of the Bible, it seems that one should have something reasonable to say about the organization that compiled it.

The second point is that the Bible is not self-explanatory. It is often subject to multiple interpretations, hence the eunuch's question to Philip (while reading Isaiah): "How can I understand unless someone explains it to me?" Thus it is fitting that tradition should be a tool in Biblical interpretation; otherwise Christian communities will descend into irresolvable conflicts about what the Bible actually means.

Finally, I just have to point out... taken to an extreme (as Jim seems to want to do), the famous Protestant "sola scriptura" principle fails its own test. Nowhere is this principle spelled out in Scripture.

[Joyless Moralist]

As for Nathan's point... I'll ignore the gratuitous Rome-bashing, and just point out that Christ did at least call Apostles and order them to go out and preach, and then in the Book of Luke it mentions him calling seventy others and sending them out as well. One has the impression that more organization may have been done in the 40 days between the Resurrection and the Ascension, but admittedly no real detail is given about what went on during that time. What is certainly true, though, is that a kind of organization began to form fairly rapidly in the years following Christ's ascension (the very first thing the Apostles do after Christ's departure, note, is set out to fill the "vacant position" left by Judas), and it is only due to the activities of this organization that we have access to Christ's teachings at all.

[nato]

During my last national guard annual training, I had a long discussion about manuscriptology and the Council at Nicaea with a Southern Baptist seminary student who was studying to defend the proposition that the KJV Bible is the only inspired and inerrant text. It was a very interesting conversation, held between two people existing in completely different epistemic universes.

[nato]

I should perhaps have noted that he wondered why his examiners wanted him to spend so much effort on a proposition so obviously true that it hardly bore defense.

[Nathan Smith]

It's interesting, though, that to justify filling the position left vacant by Judas, the apostles quote, not anything Jesus said, but the book of *Psalms.* Also, the 40 days between the Resurrection and the Ascension would seem to give plenty of time to select a replacement for Judas, yet Jesus apparently did not do so. These are some of the many details in the Bible that give the impression that Jesus didn't convey any particular ideas about the organizational structure of Christianity, but that what emerged was sort of improvised and *ad hoc*.

[Joyless Moralist]

Now, to me these details suggest exactly the opposite – that immediately after the Ascension the Apostles already understood themselves to be a governing body invested with authority by Christ. There is nothing ad hoc about the way Matthias is chosen, nor about the way Peter (Peter!) initiates the action. He doesn't propose it tentatively as a suggestion open to discussion and waiting for general approval; he asserts the necessity and connects it to the Hebrew Scriptures. The fact that he quotes the Psalms, not Jesus, indicates that his levels of both authority and understanding have increased; it used to be *Jesus* who explained to them what the prophecies taught, and the Apostles more or less blindly did whatever Jesus told them. Now it is Peter who dictates what is necessary and explains it in light of the ancient prophecies.

Why didn't Jesus pick Judas' successor himself? Because that was the Apostles' right and responsibility. Jesus chose the original twelve, and after that left it to those he had chosen to perpetuate the organization. They are no longer fledglings under Jesus' wing; it's *their* job now to build up the Church, and they immediately begin doing so, purposefully and with a clear sense of mission. The contrast to their pre-Resurrection demeanors is striking. Before the Apostles seemed largely interested in attaining better and more honored places at Christ's side in Heaven ("let us be the ones to sit at your right and left hand!"); now, post-Ascension, they suddenly understand themselves to be a governing body with an assigned task. And note that Peter describes the position being filled as a "place of leadership."

[Nathan Smith]

If it was the "right and responsibility" to "perpetuate the organization" as the apostles saw fit (a very weird idea; as if God would have impinged on their rights to intervene himself, and as if they would not have welcomed it), then why did Jesus appoint Paul directly, by means of a vision?

Note also that the apostles don't say: "We can do whatever we want." They *seek* divine guidance, by drawing lots, i.e., using a random procedure which enables God to intervene if he sees fit. Whether God does intervene is far from clear. Acts says nothing to suggest that the lots were anything other than chance. But the apostles want divine guidance and try a device to invite it. After the apostles have chosen a 12th apostle, Matthias, of whom the Bible has nothing to say thereafter, another apostle, Paul-- a 13th apostle?-- is chosen directly by God. Again, this really doesn't fit a narrative of "Jesus set up the organization; now it's the apostles' job to run it" very well. It seems rather that the apostles are guessing what Jesus would want, and there's certainly no indication of divine displeasure at their choice, but not a great deal of divine confirmation either. Meanwhile God is still acting vigorously in the church, not only in the calling of Paul but in a vision to Peter and in many miracles.

re: "The fact that he quotes the Psalms, not Jesus, indicates that his levels of both authority and understanding have increased"

What? Would it have somehow undermined Peter's authority if he had quoted Jesus? This doesn't make any sense. Surely if Jesus had given specific instructions Peter would have followed those rather than deciding what to do on the basis of a passage from Hebrew scripture of very tenuous applicability. This is nothing to say anything against Peter, of course. The apostles were trying to figure out what to do. Peter had been known to rush to judgment before. It is also important, I think, that this occurred before Pentecost and the descent of the Holy Spirit, which is the real turning-point in the apostles' demeanor.

The apostles later set up a sort of socialist commune of early Christians; and God even acts as a sort of enforcer at one point, causing the miraculous deaths of two who had cheated; yet it is not clear how long this experiment survived, and certainly it did not become the pattern of the Christian church even in Roman times (though it set a precedent for the monasteries centuries later). Again, the spirit is one of organizational improvisation amidst enthusiastic evangelism and divine intervention in the form of visions and miracles. Leadership and the creation of offices occurs *ad hoc*.

re: "Peter (Peter!)."

The significance JM attaches to this I can guess from her being Roman Catholic, but as far as the text of the Bible is concerned, Peter had always acted rather like a leader, had always shown initiative. That was just his personality. The first half of Acts focuses on Peter, the second on Paul. Never does Peter seem to have monarchical authority as opposed to merely being prominent through miracle, persuasion, and activity. You wouldn't get the idea from Acts that he's superior in authority to Paul, or indeed to any of the apostles.

[Joyless Moralist]

"Note also that the apostles don't say: "We can do whatever we want." They *seek* divine guidance, by drawing lots..."

Of course they don't say that. What kind of leadership would that be? They've been charged with serious responsibilities, not made into tyrants. And obviously they want to seek divine guidance; they are acting in Christ's name, with his authority, and they naturally want to do his will. But as in other circumstances of real life, that doesn't mean he left them a bullet point to-do list to follow; part of their new job is learning how to discern for themselves what needs to be done.

And of course, in setting up such an organization, God doesn't *limit* himself from further miracles and special works. Interventions of that nature go on occurring throughout Christian history, but in a way that *helps* the building up of the organization; it doesn't undermine it. None of that tells against what I said above. The point is that the Apostles don't sit around after Christ's Ascension saying, "huh, well, what now?" Peter immediately dictates their next course of action, which begins by filling the vacant "position of leadership" and continues by both preaching and laying the further foundations for the organization of the Church. And this is very noteworthy given that, just a few weeks earlier, they seemed to have no conception at all that they were intended for this kind of life.

"What? Would it have somehow undermined Peter's authority if he had quoted Jesus?"

I never said anything of the kind. What I said was that his dictating the next task *and* justifying himself through the old prophecies shows a level of understanding and authority that he had not formerly attained. If he had said, "Well, Jesus told us that the first thing we should do is cast lots to find a replacement for Judas, so let's start with that," that wouldn't reveal anything special. The Apostles had always taken direct instructions from Jesus. But this shows something more: not only the ability to follow direct orders, but the ability to discern what is needed, and explain that action in terms of the larger divine plan.

"Again, the spirit is one of organizational improvisation amidst enthusiastic evangelism and divine intervention in the form of visions and miracles. Leadership and the creation of offices occurs *ad hoc*."

Certainly there is an extent to which the Apostles are still working through all the ramifications of their new calling in the early days, but I don't see how that tells against my main point that they understood themselves from the beginning of Acts to be the core of a new organization, and to have been given authority by Christ to build and perpetuate that organization. God helps them in various ways, which is perfectly fitting. Also fitting is their gradual realization over time of what specific tasks need to be done, and what lower offices need to be created. What is *not* gradual or ad hoc, however, is their recognition of their own authority, or their assumption of that leadership. And throughout the rest of the New Testament, others within the Church likewise recognize that authority.

"But as far as the text of the Bible is concerned, Peter had always acted rather like a leader, had always shown initiative. That was just his personality... You wouldn't get the idea from Acts that he's superior in authority to Paul, or indeed to any of the apostles."

Actually, I think that's exactly the idea one would get from an impartial reading of the Gospels and Acts. That aspect of Catholicism always made perfect sense to me, long before I seriously considered being a Catholic. In the Acts, Peter takes charge at once, and others defer to his authority. It's true that Paul stands up to him once, but this is the exception that proves the rule; Paul is clearly taking a bold step here, and his attitude is exactly what one would expect of an underling taking a stand against the man in charge. Meanwhile, the fact that Peter shows initiative ("leadership qualities", one might say) from the beginning of the Gospels is hardly an argument *against* his having been divinely selected as the "rock upon which I will build my Church"; is it surprising that God should choose someone whose personal qualities are appropriate for the job? But more importantly, it isn't just Peter's own behavior that sets him apart. Christ indicates in several places that Peter is special. He shows particular attention to Peter throughout, and indicates to him more than once that he personally has a unique role to play in the divine plan.

[Nathan Smith]

re: "I think that's exactly the idea one would get from an impartial reading of the Gospels and Acts... It's true that Paul stands up to him once, but this is the exception that proves the rule; Paul is clearly taking a bold step here, and his attitude is exactly what one would expect of an underling taking a stand against the man in charge."

Is there a single instance of Peter saying to Paul "Do this" and Paul saying "Okay." Or for that matter, to any of the other apostles? If there were, that would be some evidence that Peter had *authority* vis-a-vis the other apostles, as opposed to merely an unusual degree of energy, initiative, and persuasive force. But as far as I know there is none. When Peter initiates the appointment of Matthias as a replacement for Judas, he speaks to the assembled believer and seeks to persuade them-- which is the reason for quoting Scripture. The case of Ananias and Sapphira does suggest that Peter (as an apostle) has a certain authority over rank-and-file believers, backed up by divine power, at least on this particular occasion.

I don't see any reason to see Paul's standing up to Peter as "an underling taking a stand against the man in charge." The fact that Peter was one of the apostles, and with a certain special energy and initiative that made him an informal 'first among equals' is certainly enough to justify the somewhat emphatic tone with which Paul describes his confrontation with Peter; there is no need at all to suggest that Peter was somehow Paul's boss.

re: "The Apostles had always taken direct instructions from Jesus."

Well, no, not exactly. At one point the apostles, on their own initiative, tried to cast out demons and were unable to do so, so the supplicant approached Jesus instead: that shows that they were taking a certain initiative. Peter in particular was always inclined to dramatic gestures which didn't always correspond exactly to what Jesus wanted, e.g., "Wash my feet and hands and head" and his heartfelt cry that Jesus shouldn't be crucified which provokes Jesus to say "Get thee behind me, Satan." It's not that different after Jesus's Resurrection and Ascension: the last order Jesus gives them is "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation." (Mark 16:15) And that's pretty much what they do.

re: "In the Acts, Peter takes charge at once, and others defer to his authority."

Sorry, it just isn't there. The others are sometimes *persuaded* by him; there's never any suggestion of formal authority over the other apostles.

re: "God doesn't *limit* himself from further miracles and special works. Interventions of that nature go on occurring throughout Christian history, but in a way that *helps* the building up of the organization; it doesn't undermine it."

That's true, but it's true *because* the organization is not of the kind you're talking about. If the appointment of Matthias as apostle was indicative of the structure of formal rules in a new organization, if Jesus deliberately didn't appoint a replacement for Judas in his 40 days after the Resurrection *because* it was the "right" of the apostles to make that decision, then it certainly *would* undermine the organization for God to go appointing new apostles through direct revelations to people who weren't even members of the church. But there was no such formal flowchart of authority. There seems to be a bit of doubt, to judge from Paul's epistles ("Am I not an apostle?" Paul asks at one point, I can't remember where) about whether Paul was really an apostle or not. No formal procedure, like the appointment of Matthias, ever seems to have taken place. But Paul was *objectively* an apostle, that is, he *acted* as a missionary, a messenger-- to judge from Acts, he was more active and successful than any of the original twelve-- and he claimed, and believers accepted that he had, a direct revelation from Jesus appointing him to that role.

re: "my main point that they understood themselves from the beginning of Acts to be the core of a new organization"

They understood themselves to be messengers of the Gospel, called to be sons of God by Jesus, the saved, subjects of the kingdom of Heaven. The word "organization" is, well, not especially apt. But yes, I suppose: it's commonsense that if a group of people is to work together some rules for decision-making have to emerge. Yet if we want to posit the apostles as the beginnings of ecclesiastical authority, it's interesting to note that "apostle" never became a permanent church office. Paul was the last to get the title. Instead, the church hierarchy that emerged consisted of bishops-- from "overseers"-- and priests: neither of which office Jesus had even mentioned.

Another office-- I think it's the forerunner of the deacon-- appears when "the Twelve"-- please note, the Twelve, not just Peter this time-- decide to appoint (Acts 6) seven worthy men to administer food for the Christian commune. Of these the most illustrious is Steven, who soon becomes the first Christian martyr, preaching a stunning speech to the Sanhedrin-- a most laudable accomplishment, but one more suitable, it would seem, for an apostle than for men tasked with the practical task of a deacon. Again, improvisation.

I'll take your word for it that "this aspect of Catholicism [the immediate emergence of an organized Church with a monarchical structure] always made perfect sense to me, long before I seriously considered being a Catholic." I'd be inclined to look for a psychological explanation of it though, because does not lend itself to that reading. Indeed, that sentence struck me since it never occurred to me until now that anyone could read the Gospel and Acts that way except as a deliberate concession to a Roman Catholic tradition in which they believed for other reasons. Life is full of surprises.

[Joyless Moralist]

I think most of what I've said here can be boiled down to two significant claims. First of all, I said that Christ founded an organization (with the implication that he did so *deliberately.*) And then I disagreed with a statement of yours, so, reversing it, I claimed that the Gospels/Acts *would* naturally give a reader the idea that Peter was superior in authority to Paul/the other Apostles.

From this you seem to be pulling all sorts of other claims that I never made, and marshaling evidence against them that to me seems basically irrelevant. For example, I never claimed that the Apostles knew from the beginning exactly how the Church would grow and develop; presumably they were given some direct information from Christ about what they were supposed to do, but I wouldn't have expected this to be an exact blueprint. Part of leadership is discerning what course of action is appropriate, and they were given the gifts needed to do so. So the fact that there were a few surprises along the way (the appointment of Paul, the admission of the Gentiles to the faith, etc.) doesn't show that the whole development was loose and ad hoc, only that the Apostles were being given more responsibility and less specific direction.

Think of the Church as being a bit like a branch of a larger company with a CEO that occasionally steps in and gives a direct order or takes charge of a project himself. Most of the time they're expected to work things out for themselves, though always in keeping with the company's general goals and with certain resources that they can turn to when they need extra help. Once in awhile the CEO might step in personally and change the course of operations in a larger way. Now, in a sense it might undermine the authority of the branch manager when the CEO steps in, because it shows that he isn't the top of the hierarchy, but it doesn't necessarily undermine him in a substantial way, because it was always a clear part of his identity that he was subject to a higher authority. Meanwhile, it's perfectly possible that the CEO (especially in the early days when he's getting a new manager started) might cede certain tasks or decisions to him: it's *your* job now, so you decide!

I don't see the relevance of Stephen's martyrdom at all. High office was never a prerequisite for martyrdom, so any expectations a person might have had about that would be pure speculation, with no real implications for the logic of the organization.

So what *does* my suggestion, that Jesus founded an organization, imply? Well, it implies that the Apostles understood themselves to have a mission, that it involved converting people and making them part of a community of believers, and that within that community there would be a hierarchical structure in which they themselves would be authoritative figures. They needn't have known exactly what the hierarchy would look like from the get-go. Obviously that has evolved to some degree over time. Concerning the authority, it included at the least the power to bind and loose sins, and to preach/interpret the Gospels for all believers. My interpretation, of course, would involve effecting Sacraments and preserving the Apostolic succession. But I won't say that a person could figure all that out without the help of tradition. What I *will* say is that a reading of the Bible doesn't render this interpretation at all implausible.

As regards Peter's authority, it seems perfectly plain from a reading of Acts that Peter is the most authoritative of the Apostles. As already pointed out, Peter starts out the first book of Acts by telling the others what to do, and they do what he says. If there's any discussion, or need for persuasion, this is not reported. (You seem to take the fact that he cites the Psalms as evidence that he needed to justify himself and win others over to his point of view, thus that he had no particular authority. There is certainly no need to see it that way; he could just be the sort of leader that likes to lead in a way that also illuminates the understanding of his flock, just as Christ himself was constantly doing.) And note that Peter doesn't put forward his idea as a tentative suggestion (well guys, here's an idea, see what you think of this...) He uses strong language: we *must* do this, the old prophecies require it. But then, moving on, it is Peter who receives the revelation concerning the admission of the Gentiles. It is Peter who deals with malefactors like Ananias and Sapphira. Peter speaks for the group on occasions like Pentecost, and when they are called in by the law, "Peter and the other Apostles" answer the questions put to them.

You seem to be very much hung up on a very specific understanding of the *nature* of Peter's authority. You're very bothered about the question of whether Peter was entitled to tell the others what to do; thus, you won't accept that Peter has "authority" unless we have some Biblical scene in which, say, James and John are both whining that they don't want to go on a mission to Bathsheva, and Peter comes along and orders them to do it. But the power to tell other people what to do isn't the only, or necessarily the most important aspect of authority, and there's no reason to expect that Scripture would give us intimate details about the interactions between the Apostles.

I agree that questions about the precise nature of the Petrine authority are not definitively settled by a reading of the Acts. What we find there is consistent with Peter having the power to command, or with a more "first among equals" interpretation such as the Orthodox might prefer. It's only in light of tradition that we're inclined to choose one over the other, which is fine with me, since after all I've claimed from the beginning that we need tradition to help us understand Scripture. All I've claimed here, though, is that a reading of Acts would easily lead a person to think that Peter was specially authoritative among the Apostles. And that, I think, is plainly true.

These two discussions are perhaps related, insofar as my claim that Peter was authoritative among the Apostles is part of the budding hierarchy that I see as the beginnings of the *organization* that is the Church. Whereas you just seem to want to say that Peter was a really charismatic guy who wasn't given any special office or calling, but who others tended to follow in light of his personal qualities. All I can say to this is that 1) there are indications in the Gospels that Christ *intends* for Peter to have a special role, and 2) God doesn't do anything without reason. If Peter exercised a special role in the early Church, why not believe that God chose him for that role, and to some degree made clear to him that he was expected to fulfill it?

The interpretations I'm putting forward aren't "just not there." They may not be the only possible way to read the passages in question, but that's generally the case for any reading of Scripture.

"...it never occurred to me until now that anyone could read the Gospel and Acts that way except as a deliberate concession to a Roman Catholic tradition in which they believed for other reasons. Life is full of surprises."

Err... I guess so. No, of course Catholics don't think that. I think you're getting confused by the same sort of "sola scriptura" mentality that started this whole discussion. Nobody claims that the entire present hierarchy and structure of the Church could be discerned from a naked reading of the book of Acts. But we *do* think that one can see certain signs of it emerging in the reading of Scripture. Tradition helps to clarify what's happening and to connect the dots between those observations that the unaided mind might in any case be able to make.