Luke 10:16 and it's (possible) misuse

[MrBibbins]

16*“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” RSV-CE

I see this passage used constantly on Catholic Answers and most all other catholic sites as one of the bases for apostolic succession and magisterial authority. I see it being used everywhere in this style,

We see in Scripture much evidence that Jesus gave personal attention to the apostles, preparing them to minister after he was no longer with them. “Anyone who listens to you listens to me; anyone who rejects you rejects me, and those who reject me reject the one who sent me"

and

We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: “He who hears you hears me”

These are just two, both from Catholic Answers tracts, but there’s loads of others. My question is this: why do we say that this passage was directed at Christ’s apostles and use it as a basis for their authority when these words were very clearly directed at the 70 disciples and not the twelve apostles? I’m not challenging any teaching or tradition of the Church, I am just confused as to why we are possibly representing this scripture to mean something that it doesn’t. Anyone help, please?

 

[dmar198]

I see this passage used constantly on Catholic Answers and most all other catholic sites as one of the bases for apostolic succession and magisterial authority. I see it being used everywhere in this style,

and

These are just two, both from Catholic Answers tracts, but there’s loads of others. My question is this: why do we say that this passage was directed at Christ’s apostles and use it as a basis for their authority when these words were very clearly directed at the 70 disciples and not the twelve apostles? I’m not challenging any teaching or tradition of the Church, I am just confused as to why we are possibly representing this scripture to mean something that it doesn’t. Anyone help, please?

1. Because the 70 disciples were also apostles, in a lesser sense, since they were “sent out” in Luke 10:3. (“Apostle” means “one who is sent,” and it is related to our word “postal worker” because they carry the letters we “send”. Same with post office.) These men were also the first bishops, together with the Twelve.
2. Because though in this text Jesus said it to the 70, in the parallel passages we see that He was saying it to the Twelve also. See Matthew 10:1, 5, 40 below:

[1] He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.
[5] These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions:
[40] He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me.

 

[fred_conty]

Sometimes he refers to his apostles as his disciples.
I can’t provide you with references off hand, but I looked at this
some time ago, and one of the footnotes I read said the very same thing.

In Jn. 1,35 ff, the apostles are being chosen and they are called disciples.

If you notice at the Cana wedding,which comes after the apostles were chosen, Jesus and his disciples were invited, which probably were his apostles. And it could be that because they all were invited, the wedding couple ran out of wine.

Just a thought.

 

[cheezey]

And it could be that because they all were invited, the wedding couple ran out of wine.

HA!!

 

[MrBibbins]

Ah, I see. So then the 70, along with the twelve were the first bishops of the Church? I mean I knew the twelve were, but the 70 as well?

 

[dmar198]

Ah, I see. So then the 70, along with the twelve were the first bishops of the Church? I mean I knew the twelve were, but the 70 as well?

Yes, they were bishops too.

 

[fisherman_carl]

My question is this: why do we say that this passage was directed at Christ’s apostles and use it as a basis for their authority when these words were very clearly directed at the 70 disciples and not the twelve apostles? I’m not challenging any teaching or tradition of the Church, I am just confused as to why we are possibly representing this scripture to mean something that it doesn’t. Anyone help, please?

So if Jesus was talking to the 70 disciples, not just the 12 Apostles, how would that take away from Apostolic Succession? I don’t see how it would. Jesus gives Peter the keys and the power to bind and loose. He gives the other Apostles this power to bind and loose as well and to forgive and retain sins. If the 70 had the authority of Jesus then how much more would the 12 Apostles have this authority and those they trained and appointed as successors?

Who are the 70? I’m not sure, but they were discipled by Jesus himself. You can’t get much better qualification to speak on the behalf of Jesus then that. The Church that Jesus started was in fact started by Jesus in the flesh who appointed those who would lead the Church, the Apostles. We see their authority is binding on the entire community in Acts 15 where they decide on the matter of gentiles and circumcision.

 

[inkaneer]

Yes, they were bishops too.

Were they? If you have evidence where the seventy were consecrated as bishops please present it. But do recall that in Acts 1 Matthias was chosen from these other disciples and the Apostles still had to place hands on him to consecrate him as a bishop. Matthias was never an Apostle of Jesus because he was never called by Christ to be an apostle and was never sent by Christ. Only eleven were sent at the Great Commission. Paul would be called and sent later as recorded in Acts. Matthias was only a bishop and he establishes the scriptural proof for the Apostolic Succession of bishops.

 

[dmar198]

Were they? If you have evidence where the seventy were consecrated as bishops please present it. But do recall that in Acts 1 Matthias was chosen from these other disciples and the Apostles still had to place hands on him to consecrate him as a bishop. Matthias was never an Apostle of Jesus because he was never called by Christ to be an apostle and was never sent by Christ. Only eleven were sent at the Great Commission. Paul would be called and sent later as recorded in Acts. Matthias was only a bishop and he establishes the scriptural proof for the Apostolic Succession of bishops.

An early work attributed to Hippolytus (but probably not actually his) lists them all as bishops. Some of them show up later in Acts of the Apostles. Here are their names and where they were bishops of: 1. James the Lord’s brother, bishop of Jerusalem 2. Cleopas, bishop of Jerusalem. 3. Matthias, who supplied the vacant place in the number of the twelve apostles. 4. Thaddeus, who conveyed the epistle to Augarus. 5. Ananias, who baptized Paul, and was bishop of Damascus. 6. Stephen, the first martyr. 7. Philip, who baptized the eunuch. 8. Prochorus, bishop of Nicomedia, who also was the first that departed, 11 believing together with his daughters. 9. Nicanor died when Stephen was martyred. 10. Timon, bishop of Bostra. 11. Parmenas, bishop of Soli. 12. Nicolaus, bishop of Samaria. 13. Barnabas, bishop of Milan. 14. Mark the evangelist, bishop of Alexandria. 15. Luke the evangelist. These two belonged to the seventy disciples who were scattered by the offence of the word which Christ spoke, “Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he is not worthy of me.” But the one being induced to return to the Lord by Peter’s instrumentality, and the other by Paul’s, they were honored to preach that Gospel on account of which they also suffered martyrdom, the one being burned, and the other being crucified on an olive tree. 16. Silas, bishop of Corinth. 17. Silvanus, bishop of Thessalonica. 18. Crisces (Crescens), bishop of Carchedon in Gaul. 19. Epænetus, bishop of Carthage. 20. Andronicus, bishop of Pannonia. 21. Amplias, bishop of Odyssus. 22. Urban, bishop of Macedonia. 23. Stachys, bishop of Byzantium. 24. Barnabas, bishop of Heraclea 25. Phygellus, bishop of Ephesus. He was of the party also of Simon. 26. Hermogenes. He, too, was of the same mind with the former. 27. Demas, who also became a priest of idols. 28. Apelles, bishop of Smyrna. 29. Aristobulus, bishop of Britain. 30. Narcissus, bishop of Athens. 31. Herodion, bishop of Tarsus. 32. Agabus the prophet. 33. Rufus, bishop of Thebes. 34. Asyncritus, bishop of Hyrcania. 35. Phlegon, bishop of Marathon. 36. Hermes, bishop of Dalmatia. 37. Patrobulus,1 bishop of Puteoli. 38. Hermas, bishop of Philippi. 39. Linus, bishop of Rome. 40. Caius, bishop of Ephesus. 41. Philologus, bishop of Sinope 42, 43. Olympus and Rhodion were martyred in Rome. 44. Lucius, bishop of Laodicea in Syria. 45. Jason, bishop of Tarsus. 46. Sosipater, bishop of Iconium 47. Tertius, bishop of Iconium. 48. Erastus, bishop of Panellas. 49. Quartus, bishop of Berytus. 50. Apollo, bishop of Cæsarea. 51. Cephas. 52. Sosthenes, bishop of Colophonia. 53. Tychicus, bishop of Colophonia. 54. Epaphroditus, bishop of Andriace. 55. Cæsar, bishop of Dyrrachium. 56. Mark, cousin to Barnabas, bishop of Apollonia. 57. Justus, bishop of Eleutheropolis. 58. Artemas, bishop of Lystra. 59. Clement, bishop of Sardinia. 60. Onesiphorus, bishop of Corone. 61. Tychicus, bishop of Chalcedon. 62. Carpus, bishop of Berytus in Thrace. 63. Evodus, bishop of Antioch. 64. Aristarchus, bishop of Apamea. 65. Mark, who is also John, bishop of Bibloupolis. 66. Zenas, bishop of Diospolis. 67. Philemon, bishop of Gaza. 68, 69. Aristarchus and Pudes. 70. Trophimus, who was martyred along with Paul. Jesus gave them the authority to teach in His name in Luke 10. I don’t know if they were all considered “bishops” at that point or if they were ordained later or if some were already ordained or not, but in my opinion it looks like Jesus’ commission to them was itself all they needed to be bishops. I don’t know if Jesus laid His hands on the Apostles either; traditionally we believe they were commissioned when He said “Do this in memory of me” and again when He breathed on them and said “Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” So Jesus’ method of commissioning His bishops was not necessarily by the laying on of hands. That was the Apostolic method and the method He wants His Church to use.

Also, re: Mattathias, it is not necessarily true that in Acts 1 they laid hands on him in order to ordain him as a bishop. Sometimes they did that just to bless someone, and since the same action is involved in the Sacrament of Confirmation, we know for a fact that ordaining is not its only purpose.

 

[inkaneer]

An early work attributed to Hippolytus (but probably not actually his) lists them all as bishops. Some of them show up later in Acts of the Apostles. Here are their names and where they were bishops of: …

All well and good but this is from a questionable source that we are not even sure who is the author.

Jesus gave them the authority to teach in His name in Luke 10. I don’t know if they were all considered “bishops” at that point or if they were ordained later or if some were already ordained or not, but in my opinion it looks like Jesus’ commission to them was itself all they needed to be bishops. I don’t know if Jesus laid His hands on the Apostles either; traditionally we believe they were commissioned when He said “Do this in memory of me” and again when He breathed on them and said “Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” So Jesus’ method of commissioning His bishops was not necessarily by the laying on of hands. That was the Apostolic method and the method He wants His Church to use.

How could they be bishops if they did not have the power or authority of bishops? If all they did was preach then there were no better than any protestant minister. But did they have the power to forgive sin? Could they consecrate the Eucharist? Did they possess valid Apostolic Succession?

Also, re: Mattathias, it is not necessarily true that in Acts 1 they laid hands on him in order to ordain him as a bishop. Sometimes they did that just to bless someone, and since the same action is involved in the Sacrament of Confirmation, we know for a fact that ordaining is not its only purpose.

Read Peter’s words in Acts 1:20. He says:

“20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘His office let another take.’” [RSV]

If you look up the Greek word in that verse that is translated as ‘office’ You will find that it is the Greek word episkope. That word is translated elsewhere in the NT as ‘bishop’.

The KJV has this same verse as:

“20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.”

The DR has the same as the KJV. So Judas occupied an office that was rendered vacant by his death and Matthias was then promoted to occupy that office. Note that Barsabas [Justus], the other nominee with Matthias had the same qualifications as did Matthias but he did not receive an office [bishoprick]. So they could not be bishops before this.

 

[sousley]

How could they be bishops if they did not have the power or authority of bishops? If all they did was preach then there were no better than any protestant minister. But did they have the power to forgive sin? Could they consecrate the Eucharist? Did they possess valid Apostolic Succession?

During Saul’s conversion, Jesus sent him to Damascus to Ananias to receive sacraments. So Ananias was already in place prior to Paul and was disposed to offer sacraments. Also, Paul wrote 1 Cor. 11 from Ephesus after he left outlining concerns of unworthily receiving the Eucharist among the assembly. We know that Apollo spent some time there and Silas was the 1st bishop. It is not reasonable to infer that Paul left Corinth “to it’s own devices” when he left but that these first disciple that were there did have authority to offer Eucharist.

 

[inkaneer]

How could they be bishops if they did not have the power or authority of bishops? If all they did was preach then there were no better than any protestant minister. But did they have the power to forgive sin? Could they consecrate the Eucharist? Did they possess valid Apostolic Succession?

During Saul’s conversion, Jesus sent him to Damascus to Ananias to receive sacraments. So Ananias was already in place prior to Paul and was disposed to offer sacraments. Also, Paul wrote 1 Cor. 11 from Ephesus after he left outlining concerns of unworthily receiving the Eucharist among the assembly. We know that Apollo spent some time there and Silas was the 1st bishop. It is not reasonable to infer that Paul left Corinth “to it’s own devices” when he left but that these first disciple that were there did have authority to offer Eucharist.

Did Saul receive sacraments (plural) from Ananais? Or was he only baptized? Acts 9:17 only mentions he was baptized. Ananais did lay hands on him but this was before he was baptized so this could not be construred as any form of Confirmation or ordination. Following his sojourn in Damascus Paul went to Jerusalem and met with the Apostles. Later he again went to Jerusalem and met with Peter. He could have been comnsecrated then. The simple fact is that scripture doesn’t really tell us when Paul was empowered as were the other Apostles.

 

[sousley]

Did Saul receive sacraments (plural) from Ananais? Or was he only baptized? Acts 9:17 only mentions he was baptized. Ananais did lay hands on him but this was before he was baptized so this could not be construred as any form of Confirmation or ordination. Following his sojourn in Damascus Paul went to Jerusalem and met with the Apostles. Later he again went to Jerusalem and met with Peter. He could have been comnsecrated then. The simple fact is that scripture doesn’t really tell us when Paul was empowered as were the other Apostles.

I don’t think the time or manner of Paul’s ordination is much questioned, he was embraced as a brother by both Ananias and Peter. The circumstances surrounding his conversion were extra-ordinary and serve as a poor litmus test for ordinary ordinations. The compelling issue is that he was sent to Damascus to be received by another that preceded himself, in this case Ananias. Jesus didn’t tell Paul to get up and go preach in an exclusive manner, a sort of personal ministry; He told him to go to Damascus. Jesus used His disciple to confer graces to Paul, though as you note, the account is not exhaustive. Paul respected the authority of the Church as is noted by his own words, he didn’t just assume his own personal authority.

 

[inkaneer]

I don’t think the time or manner of Paul’s ordination is much questioned, he was embraced as a brother by both Ananias and Peter. The circumstances surrounding his conversion were extra-ordinary and serve as a poor litmus test for ordinary ordinations. The compelling issue is that he was sent to Damascus to be received by another that preceded himself, in this case Ananias. Jesus didn’t tell Paul to get up and go preach in an exclusive manner, a sort of personal ministry; He told him to go to Damascus. Jesus used His disciple to confer graces to Paul, though as you note, the account is not exhaustive. Paul respected the authority of the Church as is noted by his own words, he didn’t just assume his own personal authority.

Are you trying to make an argument from silence? I am not sure. Scripture tells us that Paul was baptized by Ananias. That’s it. Nothing about when he made his first Communion or Confirmation or received Holy Orders. To say he received Holy Orders while on the road to Damascus is a real stretch because then he would then receive Holy Orders before he was baptized. So while his conversion was, as you say, extraordinary, there is no evidence that his ordination was other than ordinary.

 

[sousley]

To say he received Holy Orders while on the road to Damascus is a real stretch because then he would then receive Holy Orders before he was baptized.

I said that on the road to Damascus, he was told to go to Damascus to Ananias. I didn’t intend any assertion as to when, where or how he derived authorities—only that he did.

Are you trying to make an argument from silence?

Not that I’m aware of.

If all they did was preach then there were no better than any protestant minister.

I’m not aware of any indications that any of the 70, Matthias, Paul or the 12 save Judas were protestant. None seemed to minister care outside their shared profession of faith and none of their own authority.

How could they be bishops if they did not have the power or authority of bishops?

What I am suggesting is that Jesus had a purpose for sending Paul to Ananias, that is was not an arbitrary action. While Jesus certainly could have bestowed all graces and knowledge at that time (being all-powerful, and all), he chose to use his disciple (Ananias) for a purpose. So I don’t agree that the 70 were sent out by Jesus, but were not given requisite gifts to be successful in their transmission of the Gospel. The Church has always functioned with a manner of hierarchal protocol. I don’t see this event as a contradiction to that order. I think that sometimes, our quest for proofs and detailed understanding can encumber our child-like faith. But I’m neither a theologian nor biblical scholar so take it with a grain of salt. God bless.

 

[dmar198]

To the argument you made from Matthias’ ordination, that’s a really good argument. I hadn’t noticed that his promotion in Acts 1 was to the “bishopric” which may imply that he wasn’t a bishop prior to that. Very observant of you. Nevertheless, my other point still stands: the parallel passages to Luke 10:16 show that Jesus said “Whoever receives you receives me” to the 12 Apostles as well as to the 70, and therefore we can still use it to show the source of Apostolic authority.

So while his conversion was, as you say, extraordinary, there is no evidence that his ordination was other than ordinary.

Paul explained in his letter to the Galatians that His Apostleship was not from men but directly from Jesus when He saw Him through revelation. He goes to great length to show that he did not go up to Jerusalem to get authority from the Twelve, because He had authority from Jesus directly. See the first and second chapters.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
So while his conversion was, as you say, extraordinary, there is no evidence that his ordination was other than ordinary.

Paul explained in his letter to the Galatians that His Apostleship was not from men but directly from Jesus when He saw Him through revelation. He goes to great length to show that he did not go up to Jerusalem to get authority from the Twelve, because He had authority from Jesus directly. See the first and second chapters.

Let’s not confuse Apostleship with authority. There is no office of Apostle in the church. Being an apostle only means, “one who is sent”. An apostle of Jesus Christ is one who is sent by Christ. Paul was indeed sent by Christ but where did he receive his authority? Perhaps from Peter for it was right after he met with Peter that he sets out on his missionary journeys.