"If he refuses to listen even to the Church" question

[DeFide]

As an amateur apologist, one of my favorite Bible verses to use is Matthew 18:15-17, showing Jesus describing the authority of the church:

Ending with, "…If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. "

Obviously, this provides strong evidence for a visible, authoritative church. I can’t remember which one, but I was browsing through a Protestant Bible commentary which said that Jesus couldn’t possibly have said the aforementioned verses because he hadn’t even established his church at this point.

I thought most Protestants believed in the inerrancy of the Bible, but that is somewhat beside the point. What is the best way to respond to such an evasion? I think I recall reading somewhere that, in a certain sense, Christ’s earthly kingdom, or church militant, has existed from the beginning, but that only with the start of the Catholic Church with Peter, did his church become an all-encompassing, world wide, new covenant church that had finally arrived by means of the progressive covenants with the family of Adam first, then the household of Noah, the tribe of Abraham, the national family of Moses, and the national kingdom family with David.

Is this a good avenue? Any other insights or ideas?

–
Become a prayeraholic!

 

[beng]

Copyright by beng

Consider these verses

Matthew 18:15-20
15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning anything whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven. 20 For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Let me give you an illustration:

My mom gave birth to our baby sister. I immediately suggest for her to be Baptize ASAP. But when my brother hear my idea, he rebukes me (Matthew 18:15). He thinks baptizing her is not necessary. Now, this is a crucial matter and involves my baby sister’s salvation.

To make my case I gather friends in faith who agree with me. But my brother also gathered friends in faith who agree with him (Matthew 18:15-16).

I got pissed. I immediately read verse Matthew 18:17. I drag my brother to a Presbyterian Church. HOORAY!!! They agree with me!!! My Brother, that silly git he is, drags me to Calvary Chapel… !!! WHAT THE??? THEY AGREE WITH HIM!!!

This is uncalled for. How could two churches give different decision when my baby sister’s life is on the line???!! Furthermore what the church decide will be bound on Earth and in Heaven (Matthew 18:18). HOW CAN THIS BE??? THIS IS PREPOSTEROUS!!!

Shortly after, my baby sister dies of Pneumonia…

Which church is right? Presbyterian or Calvary Chapel?

 

[DeFide]

I agree, but how would you address the “Jesus couldn’t have said it” issue I mentioned in my first post?

Thanks!

 

[ralphinal]

There are two ways to look at the Jesus did not say this from the protestant point of veiw. First, the concept that it was added because Christ had not founded his Church yet (exactly what was said at face value). This presuposes the idea that Jesus either did not know he would found a Church or did not see any need to set up ground rules for it. He knew that founding a Church was as important as His Passion: who would carry the message. He knew that he was founding the CHruch, so any chance to set the rules, he would take them, whether it was before, during, or after he actually founded it. The second concept was hinted at in your post. What if He never said this at all? What if men added this? Then, the Jesus seminar people and their ilk are correct, the Bible cannot be trusted, and we are in deep doo-doo. Start from that angle: if the Bible says he said it, then he said it or the whole Bible is suspect. Then bring up the other angle: Jesus knew what he was doing the whole time.

 

[theMutant]

I don’t have my Bible handy so I cannot look up the exact verses for you.

First of all, Paul teaches that the Church (not the Bible) is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). Jesus established a Church with the Apostles and said “He who hears you hears me and he who rejects you rejects me.” When Crist said “let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector,” we must understand the historical context of such a statement. To whom was Jesus saying this and what would it mean to them?

Jesus was talking with Jews. From the Jewish perspective the world can be divided into two groups; the Jews (the people of the Covenant) and Gentiles (everyone else). The Covenant is the sacred familial bond that God established with them through Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. For Jesus to tell a first century Jew to regard someone as a Gentile is to say that they are no longer part of the Covenant; they have been cut off from it.

To understand the reference to the tax collector, you need to understand how the Romans governed the lands the conquered. They set up local leaders and gave positions of authority to locals. By doing so, they established a local contingent that would have at least some loyalty to Rome because of their position. However, how would the rest of the locals view those who accepted these positions from the conquering Romans? Most would view them as traitors. So, for Jesus to tell a first century Jew to regard someone as a tax collector is the same as telling them to consider them as a traitor.

By putting those two together, we can see the true force of what Jesus was saying. If we refuse to listen to the church, we are to be considered outside of the covenant and even as a traitor to it. This is a form of excommunication; which can only exist if the church is an authoritative body.

I don’t know if this will help with Protestants who have decided to say that Jesus couldn’t have said this. It seems to me that they only reason they would come to this conclusion is that they know accepting that Jesus said it would mean that their belief about what kind of Church Jesus established is wrong. These words of Jesus just don’t fit into the church as they have established it.

 

[beng]

DeFide:

I agree, but how would you address the “Jesus couldn’t have said it” issue I mentioned in my first post?

Thanks!

Matthew 16:18

 

[Calvin]

DeFide:

I agree, but how would you address the “Jesus couldn’t have said it” issue I mentioned in my first post?

Thanks!

I should apologize for that. It is called “form criticism” and it is, indeed, a product of liberal Protestantism. I understand, however, that it is being taught in Catholic seminaries so, perhaps, our error hasn’t stayed with us.

Form criticism’s biggest scholar was Rudolph Bultmann. The big idea was that the Biblical authors were not really authors but editors. The things that the Biblical “editors” collected had some sort of “form” (i.e. poetry, proverb, parable, etc.) and a scholar can analyze the text of the Bible and discern these forms and look for signs of editing. Probably the most famous group of higher critical scholars is the “Jesus Seminar.” spits This group has actually voted on every verse in the Gospels to see which ones Jesus “really” said. spits

A form critic would say that the reference to the “church” in Matthew is a “gloss.” That means they hypothesize that a later editor would have added the word “church” into the gospel text. (Or maybe even added the whole saying!) A form critic would reason that, since the church wasn’t founded until ~AD 33, Jesus wouldn’t have used the word “church.” So it had to be inserted by a later editor.

The important thing to note with form criticism is you can’t prove or disprove it. It really comes down to a question of authority. Do you trust the authority of random “scholars” (who may or may not even be Christian) or the Church?

I’ve always dreamed of fighting fire with fire and taking a form critic’s book and deconstructing it into “glosses” and “sections written by different authors” just to see how they would respond. Unfortunately I don’t have that much free time on my hands!

-C

 

[Tom]

DeFide:

a Protestant Bible commentary which said that Jesus couldn’t possibly have said the aforementioned verses because he hadn’t even established his church at this point. ]

Christ began His Church with His earthly ministry, He simply put Peter in charge of the Church.

 

[theMutant]

Calvin:

The big idea was that the Biblical authors were not really authors but editors. The things that the Biblical “editors” collected had some sort of “form” (i.e. poetry, proverb, parable, etc.) and a scholar can analyze the text of the Bible and discern these forms and look for signs of editing.

Absolutely right! It is the same kind of thinking that leads to their false conclusions when dating the writings and determine the order in which they were written. I may be wrong here, but I believe that some other things I have heard come from this same school of thought. For example:

The Gospels weren’t written until after 70 AD.
The Gospel of Mark was written first.
Matthew and Luke were copied off of Mark.
St. Paul did not write Hebrews.

If you really want to get through to these people, you will need to have a pretty good understanding of their conclusions and the theology they have built based on it. I’m not claiming that I do but I can give examples of what I have heard. Their conclusions are entirely based on assumptions surrounding the early Church but for which they have no evidence.

The idea that the Gospels weren’t written until after AD 70 and that Mark’s was written first go hand in hand. To begin with, In Mark 13, Jesus tells that the Temple will be destroyed. Their assumption is that Mark couldn’t have been written until after AD 70 because that is when the Temple was, in fact, destroyed. This is one of the most revealing points. Many of these “scholars” contend that Jesus didn’t really say this either but that the author of Mark inserted it. It is based on the assumption that the prophesy of the destruction of the Temple never occurred! The fact is that the prophesy must have occurred because the Christians knew it was going to happen. The Christians in Jerusalem sold their possessions and left Jerusalem before the Romans arrived. (For further points on this, I recommend a tape set called “The Book of Hebrews: The House of the Rising Son” by Scott Hahn and available from St. Joseph Communications (saintjoe.com). This tape set also addresses the question of whether Paul wrote Hebrews.

You see, their position is based on a denial of faith about Who Jesus is. It not only can’t be supported with any evidence but it flies in the face of known facts. For example, could the authors have made up a bunch of things about what Jesus said? In many cases the answer is no. The Romans were aware of Jesus and left records (note: non-Christian source) indicating that he had a large following. Jesus did not teach in isolation, but in front of huge crowds who would have known if the authors had fabricated such things.

Their position is also based on the idea that modern scholars just naturally know the those poor simpletons who lived shortly after Jesus. Simpletons like Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Ignatius! The modern scholars just assume that they know more about life back then and what Jesus actually said and did than those who lived at the time and who were taught by the Apostles and their immediate successors.

Can you help them overcome their assumptions? Well, the Holy Spirit is capable of of doing this, but don’t expect it to be easy.

 

[DeFide]

Thank you all for your great responses! I’m busy cutting and pasting this for safe keeping.

–
Become a prayeraholic!

 

[Calvin]

theMutant:

I may be wrong here, but I believe that some other things I have heard come from this same school of thought. For example:

The Gospels weren’t written until after 70 AD.
The Gospel of Mark was written first.
Matthew and Luke were copied off of Mark.
St. Paul did not write Hebrews.

You not wrong, most of those are ideas advanced by form critics. Some of these scholars have even gone so far as to posit a “deutro-Paul” from differences in writing style and theology between “Paul” and “deutro-Paul” that, of course, as modern scholars they can see what 1,000 generations of faithful students of scripture could not see. If something can be “deconstructed” it will be! (Insert Occam’s comment about unecessary multiplication of hypotheses here.)

I think, however, the synoptic “problem” belongs in a different category. (This is my opinion as a non-Catholic so take it for what you will.) It is a fact that Matthew and Luke both quote about 70% of Mark in their Gospels. One explanation is, of course, that they “copied” Mark and added other material. (There is also the Q hypothesis.) I suppose we could believe that the Holy Spirit inspired Matthew, Mark and Luke to use the exact same words in most of their Gospels; but don’t think speculating that Matthew and Luke worked off of what Mark wrote is problematic for believers.

My beef with form critics is more with attitude than method. As disciples and students we need to work within the cannon not above it.

Their assumption is that Mark couldn’t have been written until after AD 70 because that is when the Temple was, in fact, destroyed. This is one of the most revealing points.
This is true. There is a strong anti-supernatural bias in all of form criticism. If anything is prophecy, it automatically happened after the events in question. If anything is about miracles, it is automatically assumed to have been added in a few generations later. The questions we need to ask *before *we approach Scripture (I’m such a bad sola scriptura Protestant) are:1) Is there a God? 2) Can God work miracles? 3) Is the testimony of the Church trustworthy? If I answer “no” to those questions, I’m gonna be a form critic.

You see, their position is based on a denial of faith about Who Jesus is.
I would say it is also based on a denial of the authority of the early Church who formed the cannon and vouched for the contents therein. If we trust the Church, we should trust the Scriptures (and vice-versa).

Their position is also based on the idea that modern scholars just naturally know the those poor simpletons who lived shortly after Jesus. Simpletons like Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Ignatius! The modern scholars just assume that they know more about life back then
Chesterton said we should always give a vote to the “democracy of the dead” and consider what past generations have believed more important than what we moderns believe.

-C

 

[theMutant]

Calvin:

I think, however, the synoptic “problem” belongs in a different category. (This is my opinion as a non-Catholic so take it for what you will.) It is a fact that Matthew and Luke both quote about 70% of Mark in their Gospels.

Yes, but the flaw in their reasoning is that they have no answer the the question “Why could it not be that Mark quotes from Matthew?” You see, it’s their assumption that Mark came first that leads to their conclusion that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark. However, my studies have shown certain evidence that this could not be the case.

Now, you’ll have to find the references because I cannot locate my copies of “Faith of the Early Fathers” but there is certain evidence that Matthew was not only written first, but was originally written in Aramaic and then later translated into Greek so that it could be shared with other communitites.

The other flaw in their reasoning concerning the amount of material that’s the same in the Gospels is that they are relating the same stories. Matthew was a witness to those stories and Mark and Luke were in the community of witnesses who accepted what they wrote. It is only natural that their accounts would match up so closely.

 

[Tirian]

Calvin:

My beef with form critics is more with attitude than method. As disciples and students we need to work within the cannon not above it.

.

-C

With respect to this, one of the best answers I’ve ever seen to the form critics and their methodology is a little essay by C. S. Lewis called “Biblical Criticism and Modern Theology”. It is in a volume of essays called Christian Reflections. It may be out of print, but if you can find a copy of this essay, it is well worth the read.