http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp
http://sidroth.org/articles/upon-rockwhat-rock
Black text is taken from Dr Scott Hahn’s post on the Papacy
Red text is my own thoughts
Blue text is a direct quotation taken from scripture (NIV translation biblegateway.com)
Green text is comments from Ken Robinson
Psalm 11:3**King James Version (KJV)**
3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?
Somebody could say, “Well, this idea of Peter speaking ex- cathedra, that’s bogus, that’s novel, that’s unheard of’.” I would say, “No, it’s not.” When the Church teaches about how, the Pope when he speaks from the Chair of Peter, Ex Cathedra, “from the seat or from the cathedra” (we get the word cathedral from the fact that’s where the bishop’s cathedra is) the Church isn’t inventing something new. It’s building, rather, on the teachings of Jesus.
Turn to Matthew 23, verses 1 and 2, “Then said Jesus to the crowds and to His disciples, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat. So practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do, for they preach but they don’t practice.’” They preach, but they don’t practice what they preach. What’s he saying? Jesus says, “The scribes and the Pharisees.” Now, what does Jesus think of the scribes and the Pharisees? Well, read the rest of Matthew 23 and you will discover it. He goes on in this chapter to call the scribes and the Pharisees “fools, hypocrites, blind guides, vipers and whitewashed tombs.” He doesn’t think too highly of the scribes and the Pharisees, does He?
But what does He say here? “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat.” Therefore, “you have to,” it’s in the imperative tense, “You have to practice and observe whatever they tell you.” “Whatever they tell you,” you have to practice and observe. Why? Because they sit on Moses’ cathedras. The Greek word is “cathedra”. The Church, when it speaks of Peter’s authority and the Popes speaking ex-cathedra are simply borrowing from Jesus’ teaching.
[…]But why do we follow, because they have so much charm and charisma? No, because Jesus Christ has established in the Old Testament a seat of Moses which is replaced in the New Testament with the seat of Peter.
Prior to reading this article, I never knew where the name ‘cathedral’ came from, that’s neat - but flawed primarily due to translation. Dr Hahn makes a great observation pointing out that Jesus both seems to give the Pharisees and Sadducees (which often oppose each other) authority over the people while at the same time rarely or never doing what they teach himself. There seems to be a contradiction between the actions and words of Jesus. For example, in Mark 7:“1 The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus 2 and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. […] And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?” He replied, ”[…]You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”""
The law in which the Pharisees are quoting is found nowhere in the scriptures, rather it’s in the Talmud* - a doctrine established in order to “better explain” the principles of the old testament (i.e. what qualifies as ‘work’ on a Sabbath or High Sabbath?). Jesus is clear to rebuke them saying that they have abandoned the commands of God and rather hold to human traditions.
But beyond that, he STILL didn’t wash his hands. Perhaps a more convincing argument that this is not truly a commandment is the fact that, as Messiah, Jesus literally CANNOT break any commandment given by God or else his blood is unworthy of giving salvation to any. This makes it clear that Jesus gives no credit to the Pharisee’s statements nor actions and does not follow “what they say.”
Now, with this in mind, why would Jesus, after a number of events in which he directly disobeys what the Pharisees and Sadducees say, tell other to listen to them? I submit to you that he did not. Nehemiah Gordon, a scholar at Hebrew University and on the committee of translators for the Dead Sea Scrolls, was asked to look at a version of Matthew written in Hebrew (not Aramaic or Greek as are common go to sources). Gordon discovered that rather than saying ‘all that they say, do’ it says ‘all that he says, do’ where ‘he’ would point to Moses, whose seat the Pharisees teach from. Following this thought process we could say, at the least, that rather than following the Pope who teaches from the seat of Peter, we should follow what Peter says.
(To read more:
http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/books/jesuswordsonly/212-matthew-232-3-in-hebrew-matthew.html
Or:
Hebrew Yeshua Vs. Greek Jesus by Nehemia Gordon)
While the religious leaders added to and took away from the written Torah, I believe they started doing this initially with pure intentions. They attempted to build fences around the ordinances and commandments in the written Torah to make sure that citizens of Israel did not fail to obey the Torah and bring the curses of Deuteronomy 29-31 on them again (as with the Babylonian captivity). Over time, this became a battle for honor and authority in the community. Jesus saw the motives behind the actions in His day and instructed His followers in Matt 23:8-11 to not allow others to call them Rabbi (G4461) and not to call any man “father” (G3962-pater).
*Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handwashing_in_Judaism:
Jewish law today prescribes several kinds of hand washing (Hebrew: נטילת ידיים,n’tillat yadayim):
- Washing of hands when one wakes from his sleep (known in Yiddish as נעגל וואַסער, negel vasser), poured out from a vessel three times, intermittently, over each hand. This washing is said to remove an evil spirit from one’s fingers.[1]
- Washing of hands when one touches his privy parts, or the sweat from his body (excluding his face), or when one crops his fingernails[2]
- Washing of hands when one leaves the latrine, lavatory or bathhouse[3]
- Washing of hands when one leaves a cemetery[4]
- Washing of hands before breaking bread served in one’s supper, and only bread made from one of the five chief grains (wheat, cultivated barley, spelt, wild barley,[5] and oats)[6]
- Washing of hands after eating a meal where the salt of Sodom was served at that table[7]
- Washing of hands (practised by the Cohanim, or priests, of some communities) prior to going up to bless the people, as prescribed in the Sacerdotal Blessing (Heb. ברכת כהנים).[8]
- Washing of hands when, prior to eating, one dips a morsel of food within a liquid (e.g. water, honey, oil, etc.) which then clings to that morsel, with the one exception of fruits, seeing that they do not require hand washing.[9]
In two of these hand washings, water is poured out over one’s hands with the aid of a vessel, viz., 1) whenever one wakes from his sleep, and 2) before eating bread. These hand washings are nearly always accompanied with a special blessing prior to concluding the actual act of washing (see infra). Although the minimal quantity of water needed to fulfill one’s religious duty is 1/4 of a log (a liquid measure of capacity equal to the bulk or volume of one and half medium-sized eggs),[10] and must be sufficient to cover at least the middle joints of one’s fingers,[11] water poured out in excess of this amount is considered praiseworthy in Jewish law.”
It’s very interesting and important because Peter stands up with the eleven in the Upper Room, verse 15, and He speaks about Judas’ death and He says, “It was known beforehand and had even been prophesied in the Old Testament” and so what should we do now?
Notice that Peter — and by the way, notice that it is Peter who stands up. He’s not just contributing an opinion. When Peter declares an opinion it is binding and immediately following, exactly what he advises. And what is it he advises? He quotes the Psalms, “Let his habitation become desolate and let there be no one to live in it.” But then he doesn’t say, “Hey, guys, we’re from twelve down to eleven. We better hang together now or we might end up hanging separately. No we’re just down to eleven and it’s going to be us from now on.” He doesn’t say that.
He says, “His office, let another take.” Or as the King James version says, “His bishopric, let other men take.” The word there is episcopae, where we get the word episcopacy or episcopal. It’s the word for bishop. In other words, there’s an epioscopal office that is now empty and vacant. Peter stands up and says, “Well obviously, automatically, in line with the Old Testament tradition, in line with this Old Testament practice of patriarchal succession at every level in God’s family, not just at top with Moses and his seed and his successors, but even the seventy elders, when they died, they left empty offices that must be filled,” Peter is just obviously appealing to this Old Testament precedent is saying, “Let another man his bishopric, his office, take.”
I find this one interesting as in my view, the disciples acted in opposition to what Jesus had told them just the week before. In Acts 1:3”He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.” We know that Jesus was resurrected the Sunday after Passover (Feast of First Fruits according to Lev 23) and that 50 days after First Fruits (Also Lev 23) is the feast of Shavuot (‘weeks’ in Hebrew) - Pentecost (‘50th’ in Greek). Therefore, 50-40=10, there were 10 days from the time that Jesus left the disciples to the day that the holy spirit descended. Jesus tells them to stay in Jerusalem and wait for the spirit to come (v. 4). In verses 25-26, the disciples pray for God to reveal the new disciple, then cast lots. This passages causes confusion for me as I could read it a few ways. Either 1) the disciples prayed and God told them to flip a coin for the winner (which seems odd, though he could certainly control the outcome - no question) or 2) God didn’t answer and the disciples made a decision anyway. In either case, Paul, if he was to be considered an apostle, would have replaced Matthias, who was the replacement disciple (things just went inception mode on us). This seems unlikely - particularly since the Holy Spirit hadn’t ‘technically’ descended yet, therefore I tend toward the belief that the disciples acted against God’s wishes and God shows HIS replacement disciple around 8 years later, choosing Saul of Tarsus (Paul). I also find it interesting that the disciples themselves choose the parameters by which one can become an apostle. By their standards, Paul cannot possibly be an apostle. Another question is raised as to whether anyone can PURPOSELY fulfill prophecy, and if they do, whether or not the prophecy was legitimate (if I prophecy that I will go to class, and then do it to fulfill that prophecy, was it truly prophetic?); however, after reading through not just this article and others, it does seem likely that Peter did act according to God’s divine purpose, though I’m still not sure, then, how Paul fits in. I look forward to a discussion on this with you in the future (wait… was that a prophecy? ;P)
Agreed, this does appear to have been a case of “getting ahead” of the plan, but I am confused by what was really supposed to have happened in this case.
But the crisis reaches an even higher point in chapter 15. We have the famous Council of Jerusalem where there’s a huge debate tearing apart the Church. These Gentile believers, do we circumcise them or not? […]But notice, as the debate is raging, all of a sudden it stops. When? Verse 6 and 7, “The Apostles and eld…ers met together. After much debate Peter stood up and addressed them,” and he basically says the Holy Spirit purified their hearts through Baptism, circumcision isn’t needed; end all debate! The only thing that follows is that James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, adds the kind of qualifying proviso so that the Jews are not needlessly scandalized in Gentile lands. But Peter’s word was final and absolute. The debate ended. Peter had spoken.
This is not EVEN what happened… The way I read this passage, Peter stands up and tells that God accepts gentiles (never mentioning baptism) as well as Israelites (“we are saved[…]just as they are”). The text then says that the group became silent - as though they weren’t really listening all that closely, but this is only speculation, in order to hear Paul and Barnabas tell about miracles among the Gentiles. Then James, building on Peter, explains how God will raise Israel again to a role of teaching the nations about God. This is why he goes on to say “we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God […] For the Law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”v. 19-21. In my opinion, Peter speaks, Paul and Barnabas give his words authority by providing evidence, and James gives a plan of action. If this is indeed the case, it is not a “Peter had spoken,” authoritarian scenario, but rather that of a round table or evidence-based democracy.
Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them,for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon(That is Peter) has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16
“‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17
that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’—
18
things known from long ago.
19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the Law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.” 22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following letter
In verse 6, the phrase “consider this question,” connects in my mind with how the judicial system worked in Israel. Judges would hear a matter of a dispute between two parties and the judge would call witness for both sides. The judge would then find who was in the right and who was in the wrong.
In a case that went beyond the scope of a local judge, the matter could be taken to a “higher court” eventually getting to the “highest” court in Jerusalem at the Temple. The early followers of Jesus found themselves at odds with the Sadducees who ran the Temple Service and highest court. Instead matters related to following Jesus would go to the disciples in Jerusalem not resolved locally or the case had impacts on larger regions.
Now, Perhaps the most confusing part, the keys to the kingdom.
James is the “judge” hearing this case. Certain Pharisees contended with Paul that Gentiles had to be circumcised (and converted to Judaism) to be “saved.” Paul disagreed and the case affected every community throughout the Roman Empire where followers of Jesus lived. There was “much discussion,” so there were witnesses on each side given a chance to state their case. Peter adds his personal testimony of how the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit as the Jews had without circumcision. Paul and Barnabas are given time to tell stories of what they have witnessed in various Gentile communities. James then determines how the matter will be settled - who is in the right and who in the wrong. He points to synagogues throughout the Roman Empire where new Gentile believers will learn the written Torah through Moses. He focuses on three points that will clear the way for Jew and Gentile to have relationship together in the synagogue. He did not limit what laws were applicable to Gentiles but defined a starting point for new believers to have peaceful community together to begin the sanctification process through the work of the Holy Spirit.