Pints With Aquinas - Why The Papacy Is Biblical w/ Suan Sonna

Episode Date: April 27, 2021

What can the Bible tell us about the papacy? A lot, actually. That’s what I talk about today with my guest Suan Sonna, a philosophy student at Kansas State University and a Catholic convert. So, top off your glass and listen as he lays out a fascinating argument that answers the questions:  - Did Jesus intend to make Peter a pope?  - Did the first Christians believe they had a pope?  - Where does the Old Testament talk about the papacy?  - What is “living memory” and what can it tell us about the first popes?   Get my FREE ebook! https://pintswithaquinas.com/understanding-thomas/   SPONSORS Hallow: http://hallow.app/mattfradd  STRIVE: https://www.strive21.com/ Catholic Chemistry: https://www.catholicchemistry.com/   GIVING  Patreon or Directly: https://pintswithaquinas.com/support/  This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer co-producer of the show.   LINKS Merch: https://teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: https://www.strive21.com/   SOCIAL Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PintsWithAquinas Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattfradd Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/pints_w_aquinas Gab: https://gab.com/mattfradd   MY BOOKS Does God Exist: https://www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist-Socratic-Dialogue-ebook/dp/B081ZGYJW3/ref=sr_1_9?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586377974&sr=8-9 Marian Consecration With Aquinas: https://www.amazon.com/Marian-Consecration-Aquinas-Growing-Closer-ebook/dp/B083XRQMTF/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586379026&sr=8-4 The Porn Myth: https://www.ignatius.com/The-Porn-Myth-P1985.aspx   CONTACT Book me to speak: https://www.mattfradd.com/speakerrequestform

G'day and welcome to Pints with Aquinas. My name is Matt Fradd and I am so glad that you are here. I am joined today by Suan Sona to have a discussion about the papacy, whether or not it is biblical and how we might respond to common objections to it. I am honest, honestly, honest? I am honest. I am sincere. There we go. I am sincere when I say I'm actually really looking forward to this conversation. Suan is a really smart fellow who's done a lot of study into the biblical roots of the papacy. And I know I'm going to learn a lot and I'm sure you're going to learn a lot as well. Before I go any further, I've got to point this out. I have scratches on my head, Suan. I don't know if you see that or not, but whenever I come to work with scratches on my head, it's because I've been wrestling my son, Peter.

But Suan, it's really great to have you on the show. Yeah, I'm really excited to be on. And Matt, can I give a quick shout out to my parish? Of course, yeah. So yeah, St. Isidore Catholic Student Center in Manhattan, Kansas, Kansas State University. A shout out to my priest, Father Gail Hammerschschman father drew hoffman i i know that i i just i wish i could list off every single name of like all my friends but that would let's do that let's no no let's forget the episode let's just spend an hour oh man yeah uh that's cool it's really just just great to have you um yeah all right now you you now um oh gosh there's just so much to say.

Here's what I know about you. I don't know a lot. Here's what I know about you. You converted to Catholicism last year. You were a Baptist prior. You took the name St. Thomas Aquinas as your confirmation saint. You've done a ton of study into the biblical roots of the papacy. roots of the papacy. You may even have some kind of more fleshed out kind of nuance as it pertains to sort of, not teleology, typology, typology. And I know you just debated a bloke called Ubi Petros, who really seems like a stellar guy from the conversation you guys had, who's an Eastern

Orthodox person regarding papal infallibility or just the papacy in general. And so I know about you that you have studied this enough that you're willing to debate people who are really bright on this topic. And I know your sister just came into the church this year. What else do we need to know? I don't know if there's anything much more to me, Matt. I mean, yeah, I don't know, Matt. You basically said all that I am, basically. Yeah. Oh, I doubt that. Well, I mean, I do. OK, so I should mention this. So I do have a YouTube channel and a podcast called Intellectual Conservatism. And there's a whole story behind how that got started. But basically on that channel, I try to bring in, you know, the top

thinkers and people from various backgrounds to discuss ancient Christian philosophy pertaining to theology, politics, ethics, and all sorts of different areas like the metaphysics of God or the metaphysics of morality. And I do a lot of scripture stuff on there, and I share my research on the papacy and on the magisterium. So yeah. Good stuff. Well, and I've got links directly below in the description to your podcast, your YouTube channel, and to your Patreon. So people want to make sure they check that out. Okay. Before we get into the weeds as it pertains to sort of the papacy and papal infallibility,

obviously want to get into things like typology, into the patristics and objections. I just want you to give us a brief explanation to somebody who's like, I don't know much about the papacy, or I'm open to believing it. What is it exactly? Just kind of give us a simple answer to help set the stage here. Yeah, that's good. So in my work, what what I what I try to defend is the following thesis, right? So the following thesis is that Christ established a successional Petrine ministry that is supreme and infallible. So when it comes to the first part of the definition, what's really important here is that we're saying that Christ, God incarnate himself, established this institution for his church. Right. So this is an office that he instituted and that he intended to have successors. And then when we say it's a pet shrine ministry, we're saying that this particular ministry is based upon the person of

Peter. So that's going to bring in questions about then what is the commission of Peter in scripture? What did Christ exactly give to St. Peter 2,000 years ago? And then when it comes to supremacy and infallibility, when it comes to supremacy, you know, I mean, the basic idea here would be what you find in Vatican I, right? So this would include things like, for instance, the Pope can declare dogma on his own. The Pope cannot be basically judged by his inferiors. The Pope is able to immediately exercise his authority, and he has universal jurisdiction. So basically, it's not as if in the East, as you have like this regional autonomy view, where every bishop is basically the autocrat of his diocese. In the Catholic Church, the idea is that the Pope himself,

if he must intervene, he can with legitimate and full authority. And then finally, when it comes to infallibility pertaining to those things that are ex cathedra, well, so that means like when he's speaking as the supreme pastor of the entire church, and he's binding the conscience of all the people, and he's defining something only related to faith and morals, so not like aesthetics or something like that. What then happens is God will protect him from error such that he will not force all of us to be bound to error. As we know, for instance, that God is not the father of lies. So this is basically the whole picture here on what exactly the papacy is. And I hope that's a helpful description for everyone. Yeah, yeah, that is helpful.

Help me understand the Orthodox position, and I actually mean that. I'm not saying it and being falsely humble. I actually don't really fully get it. You've got these, well, help me understand the ecclesiology of Orthodoxy, because what I don't get is you have authority amongst these brothers, these bishops, but how does one have any authority over another such that they can, as it were, excommunicate them from the rest? I don't understand that. So just to me, logically, it makes sense that the buck has to stop somewhere. Like someone has the final say in consultation with the brother bishops. But at the end of the day, if you've got brother bishops who are disagreeing about something, I just, logically it seems to make sense that you would have someone, even if it's not the biblical case, right? And even if Catholicism

is false, just in my mind, having someone at the top who gets to make those final decisions makes sense. How does it work in orthodoxy? Yeah, I mean, so, I mean, the argument that you just talked about, though, so just to get to kind of the intuition you had, that's an argument that Robert C. Kuhns makes in his book, A Lutheran's Case for Roman Catholicism. And so it's kind of an a priori argument in favor of monarchical institutions. And you can find this kind of work in like, you know, Linda Zbyszczyk's work on like epistemic authority. You can find, you know, in Aquinas' work, De Regno talking about the perfection of monarchical institutions. But anyway, getting to the question at hand, right, which is about the Orthodox. I want to

be careful because I don't want to misrepresent the Orthodox position. So if an Orthodox person wants to correct me like Ubi, then I welcome it. But my understanding of the Orthodox position is that, as I stated before, they kind of had this regional autonomy view where the bishop is kind of the autocrat of his diocese. the autocrat of his diocese, and then if there are disagreements between the bishops, then they have to form a council or communicate with one another and through a cooperative effort settle the dispute. So it can't be the case that you have like one bishop who kind of rises above the rest and dominates, right? And I mean, when it comes to how they view, for instance, the papacy, they view the papacy as kind of, like they view the papacy as like an elder brother so they view the roman pontiff as like this elder brother who's given this very preeminent place but this preeminent place is maybe a position of honor um he can supervise

councils he can hear appeals but he's not the only the roman see is not the only one that can do this so they would emphasize you know places like Antioch, Constantinople, all these other places can also hear appeals. Within their region, correct? From their region. There are examples throughout history, I think, of churches in the East appealing to the Roman pontiff. So it just depends on which apostolic sea you pick.

to the Roman pontiff. So it just depends on which apostolic see you pick. Yeah, I mean, like, I actually, I really appreciate what you said there about not wanting to strawman the Orthodox position. And I promise you, I don't want to either. It's just the more I think about these things and talk with intelligent people like yourself, I'm actually trying to understand it.

And that's obviously not meant to be a gotcha question, but I'm like, how do the Orthodox figure out disputes that different bishops are having from different regions as to what the Christian ought to believe? It's not meant to be a gotcha question. I'm not sure, but I suppose it could be easily answered. I just don't know what it is. How to answer that? I mean, when you had Michael Loftin on your show, I think this is precisely one of the reasons that he said he didn't remain Eastern Orthodox, because of these kinds of questions on why, like, can you really definitively settle dogma or like issues related to these matters, like for everybody universally, if you don't have that kind of universal authority? Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough. I mean, I guess the skeptic

could say, okay, maybe it's the case that the Orthodox are wrong, that wouldn't make the Catholic right, so maybe we need to kind of do a bit of work at kind of making an argument for the papacy. So do you want to do that? Yeah, sure. So just really quick, what I want to do is I want to focus on kind of some standards for interpretation. So I know that this is going to sound really esoteric, but what I want to do is I just want to lay out kind of my approach, because some people might wonder, because as the argument goes on, you're going to I'm going to bring up Jewish sources during the time of Christ. I'm going to bring up the Jewish roots of the papacy and including the Jewish roots of apostolic succession and the idea of infallibility itself. So some people might wonder, then, you know, like, why is Swan bringing all this up? So the first thing I want to talk about is there's a difference between an interpretation that's

valid versus one that's compelling. So a valid interpretation is one where you can see where the other person's coming from, even if you don't necessarily feel obliged to accept the counter-interpretation. Whereas a compelling interpretation is one that claims it's based upon some shared fact or, you know, datum that entails the interpretation. So, for instance, if I'm arguing with someone like, you know, is Mary the mother of God? And I'll say, wait, OK, you and I both accept that Mary is the mother of Jesus and Jesus is God, right? So I'm saying here that this interpretation I have is not just valid, it's compelling as well. So there's this common fact that we share. And then the second standard that I propose is originalism.

So just a fun fact, before I became Catholic, I was originally thinking about either being a biologist or a constitutional lawyer. So that's why I'm using this kind of terminology. So when it comes to originalism, the question here is which interpretation respects the original context of the scriptures? So this will include things like, for instance, authorial intent. Can we tell what the intentions were of the writers of the gospel or even what Paul was intending when he was writing his letters? of the writers of the gospel or even what Paul was intending when he was writing his letters? Can we, for instance, detect the first century Jewish culture that formed the composition of the New Testament? Does this interpretation reference the surrounding theology and traditions of the Jews? Or even does this interpretation respect the earliest reception among the first Christians?

So for instance, when I interpret the scriptures, like for instance, if you imagine like a historian, right? A historian wants more than anything the primary sources. Secondary sources are good, but you want the primary sources. And recently in New Testament literature, there's been a focus on what's called living memory. So what you want to do is you want to find the sources that are within living memory of the apostles in order to get probably the most accurate and closest interpretations. So for instance, Craig S. Keener in his book Christo Biography, he emphasizes this point as do other Protestant New Testament scholars. And living memory basically means anyone who either personally knew the apostles or knew those who knew the apostles.

So when I interpret the scriptures, I'm going to try to stick to living memory, or at least those sources like Jewish interpretations, the rabbinic literature that can trace its origins back to the first century. Okay, so does that make sense? If you come up with an argument then that's valid compelling but not originalist or not doesn't date back to the within living memory of the apostles would that be a reason to think it's suspect i mean that's that's a possibility but i also feel like originalism itself should be part of the criterion of what's compelling because for instance no person would dismiss primary sources.

So, for instance, if I'm studying, let's say, the New Testament, and I can see, for instance, Josephus talking about the crucifixion of Christ, and I'm trying to raise this against, let's say, someone who doesn't trust the New Testament, or who has questions about whether or not the New Testament is making historically reliable claims. Well, then you wouldn't want to throw out those sources that are in the first century or that were within the, let's say, awareness of the first apostles. What if I'm a Protestant and I say, I don't need anything first, I have what's first, and that's the New Testament documents. So whatever comes after that, in as much as it coheres with the New Testament, I'm willing to accept it. But, you know, we're not doing simply the work of a historian here, we're somebody who the Protestant says accepts the New Testament as the inspired word of God.

And so whatever Clement or whoever else said, whatever else they said, doesn't matter that much to me. Yeah, I mean, so one of the first things to recognize is that most Protestants will say they believe in sola scriptura, but not in juda scriptura so if we're going to talk about a person who believes in juda scriptura hang on what's that what's that i've heard of solo scriptura what's what's this new descriptor well i mean so solo scriptura and nudist scripture they're basically the same idea so like you know just like the naked scriptures so without anything else you just go straight to the scriptures okay that's funny. I've heard the distinction being sola scriptura, which is, of course, Latin,

and then solo, meaning you go at it alone. But is that basically the same thing as what you're talking about? Yeah, basically the same thing. Okay. Now, I would agree that I don't know any Protestant who would accept solo scriptura. Right, right. And then the thing is, though, so for instance, I can mention this later in my argument, but I'll do it now. So for instance, you know, when I was a Protestant,

one of the things that I wanted to see was, okay, show me the sources that were in the first century. So this was kind of like a dare, right? So I was kind of like, show me a source from the first century, right, that personally knew the apostles, was trusted by them, right, that was considered scripture, or at least incredibly reliable from the very beginning, right, that teaches something Catholic or Orthodox. And then I stumbled upon the letter of Clement. So first Clement. Now the interesting thing about Clement's letter is that it was written either um pre-70 ad or 96 to 99 ad um scholars had typically favored 96 to 99 ad although that's recently come under fire from the scholarship of uh those like thomas heron or even michael r bacona a prominent protestant

new testament scholar um the arguments here yeah you know right he him, right? He used to live close to me, yeah. Oh, that's awesome. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, I mean, so for instance, in his book, The Resurrection of Jesus, A New Historiographical Approach, Lacona talks about how he believed that Clement of Rome actually personally knew the Apostle Peter. Yeah. And he talks about how this letter is incredibly early, and he acknowledges... And he talks about how this letter is incredibly early, and he acknowledges, I mean, so in his 2018 debate with John Dominic Crossan, Michael Lacona recognized, or acknowledged rather, that the apostles had successors to their ministry, including Peter.

So, I mean, this guy, you know, Michael Lacona, he tries his best to be as objective and fair with the evidence as possible, and he's coming to these conclusions. Now, here's the kicker, right, for why I mentioned Clement of Rome. So the scholarship right now favors Clement being written 68 AD, perhaps, or before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. Now, the reason why this is important is because if the 60s dating is correct, then this letter would have been written before some of the Gospels themselves and before the martyrdom of Peter and Paul. So this is incredibly early in the history of the church. And Clement says, and I think it's chapter 44, verse 1 to 3 of his letter. So to our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that strife would arise over the office of bishop. And therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they added those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the provision to the effect that if these men should die, other men should succeed to their ministry.

So notice what this is saying. It is saying that Christ himself told the apostles to protect the office of bishop, and then they chose the first bishops from those who have already been mentioned. We don't necessarily know what he's referring to there. But then it says that these men should have successors to their ministry if they die. So the bishops are supposed to have successors in their offices. So when I read that, I was kind of like, man. Who presented that to you? Because you said you asked for evidence. Yeah, I mean, so I think what happened was I was just on Google,

and I was looking up, okay, apostolic succession, right? And then Catholic Answers popped up, and I clicked on their link, and then I read this letter from Clement. And then I started asking myself, okay, well, but, you know, people make the argument that bishop, presbyter, elder, these are all the same office. And then I read the book, The Original Bishops, I think published in 2016 by Alistair C. Stewart. And basically, the scholarship is against that position. In Titus, for instance, Paul predicates certain things of the office of bishop that aren't said of, for instance, the other offices.

And sorry, I'm going on and on. No, you're not at all. This is fascinating. Keep going. Yeah. But basically, Stuart makes the argument in his book, The Original Bishops, that these three offices of bishop, presbyter, and I think he mentions like deacon, right? So these three offices, these were three separate offices in the church. So what happens is sometimes you look at the

letters of Clement or even Paul, and it seems as if he's saying, for instance, he's talking about the bishops, and then he switches to the presbyters or to the elders as if they're interchangeable. So Stuart's explanation of this phenomenon is the fact that the offices in the church ultimately, well, okay, so for instance, in the early church, people would meet in their houses. And the person who was the head of the house church was called the episkopos. And the person who assisted the episkopos was the diakonos, or the deacon, right then after that you had male patrons or people who would pay money to the bishops or the the episkopos to help them fund

the distribution of the eucharist so they would need economic connections in order to get the food to get the wine right for the christian meal and then what would happen is someone who was a presbyter or an elder could simultaneously be an episkopos. So if you were an episkopos, you could also be a presbyteros, right? So those offices, they were interchangeable in that sense, but they were distinct. So that's an important distinction to make. Okay. All right. Yeah, good. All right. I gotta ask, I mean, you were a Baptist last year. You must read a lot because you know a lot about this stuff. I mean, was it this topic that brought you into the church? Well, it was a host of topics that brought me into the church. And when I explain my

conversion testimony, I like to say that I became Catholic first and foremost because of my love for Christ. You know, growing up when I struggled to understand God the Father, or I felt like God the Spirit was too abstract, my love for God the Son never disappeared. And it was ultimately through God the Son that I came into the church, because I started realizing that my Messiah, my King, he built a kingdom on this earth. And that as I looked into the new Testament sources, and as I looked into the, the Jewish identity of Christ, I began to be able to more perfectly see his face and that face, you know, it draws in me in with love. It draws me in with in with love it draws me in with its beauty it draws me in with its truth and with its life so um yeah i became catholic for a host of reasons

one of them was when i started realizing like the stuff about mary was actually the stuff that mary and dogmas actually do have scriptural support um especially like the the the typology between mary and the ark of the Covenant. That blew my mind. Or even as I started studying the papacy, or I started realizing too that like I just, growing up, I just always found the Catholic, whether or not I knew it, right? I always found the Catholic view of justification just making way more sense. Yeah.

So yeah, I mean. Okay. Yeah. One of the things Ubi brought up in your debate with him seems to be that, and then maybe I'm also kind of bringing in Jerry Walls here, the Protestant apologist, is, okay, where's the patristic evidence that shows that Peter was the first pope? I mean, maybe you can show a distinction between deacons and priests and bishops in the New Testament language and prove that, but where's this universal understanding that

one of the Apostles could settle all disputes? Where's the patristic evidence for that? Good, so I think so they're they're kind of like two questions and and by the way if i'm if i'm going too far ahead and you want to slow down and back up a bit feel free to interrupt and do whatever you want i'm yeah no you're good so yeah i mean we can do this and then i can go into the biblical arguments that swayed me and um that have swayed a lot of others. So basically, there are two questions that you raise, right? So one is about the Petrine successors, and then one is about the supremacy, right, of the Roman pontiff. So when it comes to the Petrine successors,

I think the earliest source we have is St. Irenaeus writing in about AD 180 in his work against heresies. So he talks about how both Peter and Paul, having founded the church in Rome, committed the office of the episcopate to Linus. And then, of course, Eusebius, who's the church historian under Constantine, later mentions the fact that Linus is mentioned, I think, in either 1st or 2nd Timothy. So the first pope's name, aside from Peter, is in the Bible. You can find his name. But basically, the reason why Irenaeus should be taken seriously is because he is a source within living memory, because he was trained, I think, if I'm not mistaken, he's a disciple of Polycarp, who is a disciple of John. So he has access to the living memory of what the apostles taught. So he has to be taken seriously.

And he makes this point, right, that the Roman episcopate was handed from Peter and Paul to Linus. Now, the other thing that people are going to say is, well, Irenaeus is obviously wrong, right? Because we know that before Paul writes his letter, before Peter ends up in Rome, there was already a Roman church. And what's interesting here is that both Francis Sullivan, so he's a Jesuit, so he's a Catholic, so take or leave it if you want to consider a Catholic source, or Alasdair C. Stewart in his book, The Original Bishops, there's recently been a move to kind of be more charitable towards Irenaeus, because what Irenaeus is probably saying here is not that they founded the church in the sense of like efficient causality, right? So it wasn't there before, and then it came into existence afterwards. Rather, what Paul and Peter had done is they had helped the churches there basically federate, have a more organized

system and structure, and in that sense, then you could consider them like a formal cause that helped the church become, you know, more unified and federated, right? So in that sense, they founded the church in Rome, in the singular. And I mean, there's a whole host of things we can say there. But basically, Irenaeus' testimony is incredibly important for Petrion's succession. And none of the patristics challenge this idea that Peter had successors in the Roman sea. So why is that not an argument for apostolic succession, but not necessarily succession of Peter's authority? Because I presume that the Orthodox also point to this to establish apostolic succession. Right. I mean, so I think, yeah, I mean, so I think it can do both, but it depends, right? So for instance, it's recently been brought to my attention that some of the Syriac fathers, and

there is a book that was written on this, and I think it's something like the Syriac fathers on the primacy and prerogatives of St. Peter or something like that. And it's a compendium of these fathers that are talking about, for instance, the Roman successors to Peter are unique successors. So even though, for instance, the Orthodox will want to say that every bishop is in some sense Peter or something like that, the Syriacs seem to recognize that Peter had unique successors. The Syriacs seem to recognize that Peter had unique successors. And then I think I also have a quote by, you know, St. Cyril of Carthage, if I can find it really quick. And he talks about how, for instance, here, let me read it.

So this is St. Cyprian of Carthage. So this is written in, let's see here, the Unity of the Catholic Church, AD 251. So he says, quote, The Lord says to Peter, I say to you, he says, that you are Peter. And upon this rock, I'll build my church and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you, I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And then Cyprian continues on him. He builds the church and commands him to feed the sheep. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he, Jesus, founded a single chair or cathedra,

and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was, an apostle. But a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one church and one chair. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? Wow. When was that written? By Carthage? So this is beyond living memory, but it's still incredibly early.

And was this disputed by anyone else around that time um so i yeah so i mean i i'm not sure about the full context of the source and this is why too like i want other people to check this out matt my specialty is more like in the first century and living memory so you know i i'm kind of um engaging with these quotes here but i'm sure like um you know one one of our Orthodox brothers will say, well, there's more context to that quote. But the point here then is that it's incredible that you have people saying this sort of thing and people distinguishing the chair of Peter from the rest of the apostolic chairs and authority. So I think, you know, I can go on and

on and on about, for instance, the Syriac fathers talk about how Peter can be likened to a new Moses who inherits the flock of Israel and is made head shepherd. I mean, clearly, you know, sometimes when I hear my Orthodox brothers talk about the patristics, I think there was just so much disagreement on the authority of Peter or there is unanimous agreement that Peter just had a primacy of honor. But then I start looking at the sources, and I'm like, wait, okay, so some of them will make these incredible claims. And even in, you know, Eric Ybarra's debate with Jay Dyer on reason and theology, I mean, he brought up quotes from Orthodox saints and ecumenical councils talking about the universal jurisdiction of Rome, to the point where Dyer had to say, yeah, the ecumenical councils are wrong, the Orthodox saints are wrong. But the point here, Matt, is the fact that we do have a patristic witness that at least implies something more about Peter than just a mere, quote-unquote, primacy of honor. And even the phrase primacy of honor, I remember someone had mentioned this to me

from their scholarship on the patristics that actually didn't just mean like honor in a loose sense of kind of like you know uh you know you kind of um like uh the successor peter is kind of like in memory of peter right in that sense no like it actually carried with it weight and authority um so yeah i mean there's a lot that can be said there but um uh yeah i'm excited to get into the biblical witness. And then you'll see kind of how it all goes together in the end to get to Vatican I. Yeah, that'd be awesome. And I'll let you unroll here.

And yeah, don't apologize for going on because everything you're saying is completely fascinating. I know, you know, you've probably said this stuff a thousand times. So to you, it's old hat, but it's really great. stuff a thousand times so to you it's old hat but it's it's really great uh so for you it was it was the patristics that led you to be open to the biblical evidence for catholicism then i mean it's not as if you were unfamiliar with these verses right um so if i'm being honest right uh yeah of course but um that'd be good uh Uh, as a Protestant, you know, who believes in sola scriptura, I was like, you gotta, you gotta go to scripture for this, you know, like you gotta, you gotta start with scripture. And then I said, okay. And if you have church fathers who personally

knew the apostles and were trusted by the early Christians, right. Because, you know, knowing my background as like an originalist or like, you know, with my, with the Constitution, I said, okay, I know that you can't just say we just need the original documents and we can't consult the surrounding community, right? So I said, okay, I'll only listen to the Fathers within living memory of the Apostles. I'll only focus on the first century texts and let's see where this gets me. And it got me to Catholicism. So that's a powerful witness in itself. So after encountering these passages from these early church fathers from the first century, that then opened your eyes to these different verses in Scripture, such as when Christ

calls Peter the rock or asks him to shepherd the sheep. Is that right? Yeah, and then I also consulted predominantly Protestant scholarship, but also I think, you know, I know that some of the Orthodox who listened to my debate last time, they were kind of like, why is Swan only citing Protestant scholars or whatever? I mean, aside from the fact that independent of their identity, right, so this is kind of an ad hominem fallacy, aside from that, these are respected men in the scholarly community

who have studied the ancient sources, so they have important things to say about the original context of the scriptures, right? So I'm not going to dismiss them or filter out my evidence already, because that wouldn't be intellectually honest. And then when I looked at these Protestant sources, I started finding just the most incredible concessions on the Roman Catholic interpretation and them conceding certain things and then having to say, okay, I know this sounds like the papacy, but the reason why it's not the papacy is because then, you know, and then, you know, I address those arguments. But I mean, it's just what I found was incredible, Matt.

All right. Well, lead us through it. Okay. So then, so I basically have like three arguments that I try to do in making the case for the papacy. The first two are heavily biblical. So the first one is that Peter is the new Eliakim. So let me just read you the two passages that I'm basing this argument off of. So in Matthew chapter 16, verse 19, Christ says to St. Peter, I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. And then the parallel here is to Isaiah 22, 22, when God deposes Shebna,

who is the former prime minister of his office, and puts Eliakim in his place as the prime minister of the Davidic monarchy. So here's what God says. Then I will put the key of the house of David on his shoulder. This is Eliakim's shoulder. When he opens, no one will shut. When he shuts, no one will open. So let me first go into justifying the typological parallel and then justifying why Peter is the new Eliakim. So there are seven reasons why the typology is valid. The first is that there's a common structure. So God gives the keys of a kingdom to a person whose decisions are secured by God's promise. There's clearly a common structure here. The second thing is that the

religious context of both passages are the same. There's this theme of going from corruption to purity. So we know, for instance, in Isaiah 22, 15 to 16, the reason why Shebna is removed from his office as prime minister is because he carved out a tomb where God did not approve. So Shebna had defied a dictate or commandment of God and therefore became unworthy of his office. And then we see in the New Testament that the declaration made to Peter happens at Caesarea Philippi. So Anthony J. Sauterini in the Erdman's Commentary on the Bible, he notes that in Caesarea Philippi, where Christ made this declaration, he notes that in Caesarea Philippi, where Christ made this declaration,

there was this giant rock of pagan worship that was dedicated by Philip the Tetrarch to Caesar Augustus, and eventually it became a site of pagan worship for the deity Pan. And then Ben Witherington III, in his commentary on Matthew, he likewise notes that when Christ mentions, for instance, the gates of the netherworld or the gates of hell, around that same pagan rock, there was a stream that the people in the surrounding area, the pagans, believe led to the gates of the underworld. So then notice here that there's this theme of going from a corruption to a new kind of purity. So then, for instance, Christ in the New Testament with his declaration to Peter, he is saying to Peter that, look, the corruption of paganism will be taken away

and the triumph of my church, of my ecclesia, the triumph of my rock will take over. So notice that that's what's going on here. The third parallel then is also the political context. So in both contexts, in Isaiah 22, 22, and Matthew 16, 19, Peter and Eliakim received their keys before the fall of Jerusalem. So in the NRSV Harper Collins Study Bible, it notes this fact. So Shebna's office, quote, is promised to Eliakim, who apparently replaced Shebna before the siege of Jerusalem. Isaiah 36, 3, 2 Kings 18, 18. And then we know in the case of Peter that he received the keys pre-33 A.D., so before the death of Christ, and before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The fourth parallel, then, is that Jesus is the new David.

The fourth parallel, then, is that Jesus is the new David. So God promises David in 2 Samuel 7, 8-14 that one of David's sons will establish David's kingdom and throne forever, and that this son will also be God's son. the most high. And the Lord God will give him the throne of his father, David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever. And his kingdom will have no end. So notice what's going on here. Jesus, as the new David, as the prophesied son of David, is rebuilding the Davidic monarchy. And he's instituting now the office of prime minister for the new Israel, which is the church. And for instance, Justin Martyr in his dialogue with Shrifo, or even you can look into Galatians or even the writings of Paul and Romans, the church is understood as the new Israel. And even

in Matthew 21, 43, Christ talks to the Pharisees about how the kingdom of God will be taken away from the Pharisees, from the original covenant community who rejected Christ, and will be given to a holy nation producing its fruits. And then Peter, I think it's in 1 Peter, he describes how the church is a holy nation. So then, for instance, I think it's Stanley Toussaint in his study on the Gospel of Matthew, he concludes that clearly the church is the holy nation in Matthew 21, 43. So the church is the new Israel. We have the Davidic son. We have the Davidic king. We have the Davidic Messiah. We have the office of prime minister now in the new

covenant. And for instance, number five, Jesus cites Isaiah 58, 6 and 61.1-2 when he reveals in the synagogue that he is the Messiah in Luke 4.16-21. So then Isaiah's reappearance in Matthew 16 fits this pattern. When Jesus discloses that he is the Messiah, he always references back to Isaiah in some form or another, or even Daniel chapter 7. But the point here is that the fact that Isaiah appears in Matthew 16, 19 is not, let's say, unexpected, right? Because it occurs in other passages. So there's a strong background plausibility that Christ is making a declaration that is tied back to his messianic identity. And then the sixth kind of argument for the typological parallel is widespread scholarly recognition. So get ready for this, Matt. So the prominent Protestant scholar, Craig L. Blomberg, in a commentary

on the New Testament use of the old, writes, quote, the keys to the kingdom, 1619, almost certainly is based on the identical metaphor in Isaiah 22.22. Craig L. Blomberg is one of the leading defenders in the Protestant and in the general Christian community of the reliability of the Gospels. So he's a significant scholar. The New Bible Commentary, edited by Donald Guthrie and others, quote, quote, the phrase 1619 is almost certainly based on Isaiah 2222, where Shebna, the steward, is displaced by Eliakim and his authority is transferred to him. Two scholars, two Protestant scholars saying almost certainly the typological parallel is valid. And then finally, Patrick Gray in the 2017 Rutledge Guidebook to the New Testament writes, quote,

many scholars discern an allusion to the ancient Israelite practice of the king granting authority to a prime minister who, as holder of the key of the house of David, is deputized to make binding decisions on his behalf. And he's talking here about Matthew 16, 19. So notice here that we have top Protestant scholars recognizing the typological parallel. We have many scholars, at least in 2017, the last time we've checked, recognizing this parallel. And that this prime minister who held the key of the house of David could make decisions with the king's power. Okay, and that's just number six. Let me just go to number seven really quick, if you don't mind, Matt.

Yeah, yeah, please. Yeah, so then the final, the seventh typological verification is that both offices are religious and political by nature. So, for instance, I've heard the objection that, you know, Eliakim's office is only purely secular, or it's just political and it doesn't have any religious significance, right? Well, if you notice in the earlier part of the passage, it talks about how Eliakim wears the tunic and the girdle and the sash of Shebna. And then we also know that Old Testament priests wore tunic and sashes and girdles. So for instance, a tunic in Exodus 28.4, Leviticus 8.7, Ezra 2.69, Nehemiah 7.69, or 7.70, depending on the translation, girdle in Exodus 28.4, 28.39, 28.40, 29.9, 39.29, Leviticus 8.7, 8.13.

So the point here is that Eliakim's office is both religious and political. He was both simultaneously a priest and a prime minister. And there was another point that I wanted to mention here, but it's kind of leaving me at the moment. Maybe I have it later on in the sources. But basically, there's a clear typological – oh, so the other argument I wanted to make, and let me see if I can find it real quick. And Matt, feel free to ask me a question. I've been going on. I've been having a good time. I don't want to. This is great. I don't want to derail you with a question, but mine would be, and you understand I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here. So I hope you don't mind.

I know you're more than up to the task. When would a typological connection be inappropriate? Suppose I was to make one between some Old Testament figure or event to a New Testament figure or event, and suppose on the surface of it, it sounded convincing. How would I know that I'm wrong? Okay, so when it comes to the identification of typology, there are different methods for doing this, although typology is not a strict science. So that's one thing to keep in mind, right? But I mean, for instance, one of the things that you'll want to notice

is if there's a pattern that is too noticeable to be considered a coincidence. So there's some intuition that's involved here. The other thing that you're going to want to look for is whether or not the typology is orthodox. And what I mean is that with a little o, right? So what you want to see, for instance, is that the typology actually seems to be something that the author of the Gospel or the letter wanted to emphasize. And you also want to ensure that it's not a typology that's so random and unorthodox or heterodox that it ends up undermining probably the intent of the original author. Okay, that's a good answer. Yet when I look at the sort of typological connections between the Ark of the Covenant and Mary's visit to Elizabeth, it seems overwhelming to me just reading that.

It seems like this is what Luke had in mind. So let's just assume that that is for a moment. Could you make a sort of typological connection that, well, let me ask it a different way. Who is the first prominent Christian who made this connection that you're making? So to the Isaiah 22, 22 and Matthew 16, 19 passage. So it would be among the Syriac fathers. I believe it was St. Ephraim. And there were some others that I can't recall off the top of my head. Okay, but early.

Okay. Okay. Yeah. So, I mean, the parallel is not unheard of. Although I think from my... The reason I asked is I noticed you've been quoting Protestant scholars, which I think would... Which, as you say, that's a good thing if they know what they're doing.

And, of course, they do. And I could see that being compelling when arguing against Protestants to say, look, even your scholars recognize this. But I would imagine some Orthodox friends would say, okay, I need you to go earlier than what modern Protestant scholars would say. What do you say to that? Well, I think the first thing I'd say is that at least we do have, you know, the Syriac fathers recognizing this parallel between both passages.

I think the second thing I'd want to point out is that, for instance, you know, with the arguments that I've done and the method that I presented, you know, even Ubi Petrus in our debate, he kind of said, yeah, I mean, this is a compelling interpretation. Although he meant compelling in the sense that he could see good reasons for believing it. So maybe he meant it as more valid. So I don't want to say that he I don't want to say that he thinks like he's wholesale, like on with my interpretation. I don't want to put words in his mouth. But I mean, even other Orthodox, the gentlemen who are commenting in the comment section, they were also recognizing, okay, this is a pretty compelling interpretation. But then they said, but you know, I need fathers to say that peter's a prime minister right and then i think that and then i think this is the other

thing too matt right i mean so one is that if you recognize independently that the arguments stand then you know you're going to have to justify why you're only going to strictly go back to what the fathers themselves have strictly, expressly, explicitly said. So in other words, if Protestants are guilty of sola scriptura, then this method is guilty of sola patris. Because then it's saying you can only use the fathers and you can only use their interpretations, right? As if the scriptures can't speak on their own, right? As if the scriptures are so subordinate. And this is the other point I want to make too, Matt.

I mean, if there are any Protestants who are watching and they're on the fence between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, with the arguments that I've been raising, if you have a high view of Scripture, then I think you have more grounds for accepting the Catholic position if an Orthodox individual keeps on insisting on solus patris. Because what I think the Catholic position does is it takes all, you know, it takes the tradition, it takes the magisterium, it takes the scriptures, and it respects all three of them and has a nuanced understanding of the fact that, yes, they can coincide with each other. But we also see that the scriptures have very important things to say. And whether or not the fathers necessarily explicitly pick up on it, we're able to also discern this throughout. explicitly pick up on it, we're able to also discern this throughout. And then also I've offered numerous arguments to the effect that the gospel writers were intending to show that Christ is the Davidic king, and that clearly here then we have Peter being presented as the prime minister.

And if you don't mind, Matt, sorry, I'm going on and on. Don't be sorry. It's excellent. Yeah, sure. So this is the point that I wanted to make, too. So some of the Orthodox and Protestant objections, they'll say, well, look, you know, so this office of Eliakim is just a political secular office. It doesn't have any bearing on the new covenant. 12 thrones from which they would judge israel matthew 1928 and luke 22 30 solomon a son of david appointed 12 governors to judge israel in first kings 4 7 so notice then that in the old covenant in the old testament you had the secular office of the 12 district governors that christ reinstitutes in the new covenant as an ecclesial office, right, to represent the apostolic authority, right? So the point here is that Christ takes things that are in the old covenant, in the old community, and he puts them in for his new Israel and his church. So if it happens in the case with the 12 governors of Solomon, and there's a good paper on this titled, When the Apostles Became Kings, where a scholar mentions this point, then why would it not also

carry over the office of prime minister? At that point, then you'd be selectively choosing what things carried over when Christ should be the one selecting what carries over, because he's the king. I know I'm putting you on the spot here, but can you give us the names of the Syriac fathers that saw this correlation or connection? Yeah, okay. So I mentioned St. Ephraim. I mean, so there are others that I can probably find, but I'll probably have to go Google that or whatever. Yeah, that's fine. Yeah, I think someone in the comments section, because I know a lot of my friends like Daniel Jackson and even Eric Ybarra, they'll be able to cite those fathers. Yeah. Yeah, that's a compelling point about the Solopatras.

I hadn't thought of that before. Right, because, I mean, if you, whenever someone has to justify their position by arbitrarily limiting the canon of evidence, red flags should go off in your mind. Like, why are you limiting the evidence or why are you suppressing all the other relevant evidence that goes into the first century context or allows us to understand the authorial intent of the gospel writers? Yeah, okay, Matt, do you mind if i keep on going yep yep go for it okay sure so then i have a two arguments here for peter being the new eliakim now matt don't work this is going to also get really really fascinating okay so the first reason that peter and eliakim are parallels to each other is that both of them are compared to objects with respect to their ministry to each other is that both of them are compared to objects with respect to their ministry.

So Eliakim is compared to a peg that will one day collapse, presumably during the fall of Jerusalem, Isaiah 22, 23 to 35. Peter, however, is identified as the rock of Christ's church in Matthew 16, 18. And there are six reasons why I'm not saying that it's Peter's confession or Peter's faith or, you know, whatever. Right. There are six reasons why. First, it has been the consensus of scholars since the 1970s that it is the person of Peter that is the rock of Matthew 16, 18. So let me reiterate that. This is not like a Catholic scholar in one corner over here, right, making arguments on the Catholic Answers website, okay? This is unanimous, overwhelming consensus of Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, agnostic, secular scholars on this matter. So for instance, in Charles Talbert's 2010

commentary on Matthew, quote, at the end of a detailed history of research, Joseph Burgess, At the end of a detailed history of research, Joseph Burgess, 1976, concludes that opinion has shifted toward identification of Peter, not Christ or Peter's faith, with the Petra in 1618. The decisive argument seems to be that in certain Jewish circles, Abraham was regarded as the rock on which Yahweh built the old congregation. Look to Isaiah 51, 1-2, or the Yaquit Shemoni, 1766, numbers 23 and 9. It's a parable that tells about a king who planned to build a palace, and just so God sees Abraham and chooses him as the rock on which he builds the world. So the Jewish sources, the ancient rabbinic commentaries, the Yaquit Shemoni, or it's known as the Abraham Petra Midrash, or even, for instance, the Dead Sea Scrolls, they all describe how God builds communities on rocks and Abraham is identified as the rock of Israel. Notice then that if Christ changes Peter's name like he changed Abraham's name from Abram to Abraham, and then Abraham is referred to as the Rock of Israel,

you see then within the first century context, people would not have missed that Peter is the Rock of Christ's church. Or even likewise, the 1985 Encyclopedia Britannica, quote, Though in the past some authorities have considered that the term rock refers to Jesus himself or to Peter's faith. The consensus of the great majority of scholars today is that the most obvious and traditional understanding should be construed, namely that rock refers to the person of Peter. Or let me let me just put the icing on the cake real quick. All right. So in 1995, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, this is what it says, quote, Roman Catholic exegesis is right, and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected. That was written by the Protestant scholar Oscar Kuhlman, a Lutheran. So this is known among the Protestant community, among the community of scholars, that the rock of Matthew 16, 18 is the person of Peter.

And then, you know, Matt, I can go on about. So I mentioned the Jewish sources. Craig Keener talks about in his 1997 or 2011 commentary on Matthew, quote, 1997 or 2011 commentary on matthew quote By jesus's day the greek terms petros peter and petra rock were interchangeable And even john calvin in his commentary on matthew. He he recognizes that there is no sharp distinction between petros and petra D. A. Carson in the 1984 Expositors Bible Commentary, he actually provides an argument for if the Protestant interpretation were correct, then we actually know what Greek word Christ would have used. So here's what he says, quote, Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Peter the rock, the more common word would have been lithos, stone of almost any size.

Then there would have been no pun, and that is just the point. So notice that D.A. Carson is saying that if the Protestant interpretation were correct, then we would expect this Greek word to be used. But the fact that it's not used counts as evidence against the Protestant hypothesis. Or even when Christ says, upon this rock, he uses the Greek word taute. Or even when Christ says upon this rock, he uses the Greek word taute. Now, in Strong's Greek 3778, whenever this or taute is used, it means it refers to the same object previously referred to or antecedently. So it's carried over. And for instance, in the New Testament, especially in Matthew's gospel, you see taute used in this way. especially in Matthew's gospel, you see taute used in this way. So for instance, in Matthew 1, 19 to 20, when Joseph plans on divorcing Mary, and it says he considered these things, it uses the word taute, which lets you know that it's referring to the same thing that was referred to

in verse 19 about his worries on Mary's unlawful pregnancy, or even, or what he thought was the unlawful pregnancy, or even Matthew 5, 19, when Jesus says, therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, tauton, right, then, you know, and then teaches others to do the same, he'll be called least in the kingdom of heaven. So when Jesus mentions this in verse 19, the tauton here allows us to know that he's referring to the law of Moses that he had previously mentioned in Matthew 5, 17 to 18. So let me just emphasize that there are numerous arguments from the Greek for why it is not the case that Peter is not the rock. Or the sixth and final reason that I just wanted to mention was that in David Bivens' article in the Language Environment of First Century Judea published

by Brill academic publishers, he points out that regardless of which tongue Christ used to say this phrase in Matthew 16, 18, and 19, whether it's Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, it comes to the same conclusion that Peter is the rock. So it doesn't matter what language he said it in. If it's Greek, good. If it's in Hebrew, Aramaic, the pun would be even stronger. And this is why, for instance, Keke E. Leander, or yeah, Keke E. Leander in the New Interpreter's Bible Commentary on Matthew, I think it's volume eight,

he straight up says that for our English ears, if we transliterated, rightthew 16 18 then it would sound like this thou art rock and upon this rock i'll build my church that's what christ's words would actually sound like if we transliterated it to our english ears because when we hear peter and rock we think okay yeah two separate things in original Aramaic, it would have been either Kepi, Kepi, or Kepa, Kepa, both times. Yeah. Awesome. All right, good.

I mean, I've been convinced for a while that you can't get out of that, that you have to call Peter the rock. So, okay, fair enough. So, what patristic sources are there to back up these claims and what the Bible, I think, clearly teaches? Yeah, I mean, so for instance, if you look into the work of, I mean, so if you buy like a basic compendium of like what the early church fathers have to say, so whether it's Burkhot or Jimmy Akins or any other stories, you can find the citations where the fathers, they will say that Peter is the rock on which Christ built the church. There are some, however, like St. Augustine, although I know Trent Horn is kind of contesting this, but for instance, Augustine has traditionally been assumed to have thought that it was Christ and not Peter that was the rock

or something like that. But there is patristic witness that Peter and the rock are identical. Yeah, I'm just looking this up right now. Yeah, yeah, sure thing. I mean, while you do that too, I can try and finish out the rest of the argument here and then we can get to the second one if possible. Sure, we could try.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, yeah. I'm looking here. Sorry, the letter of Clement to James. Yeah. Around the third century. Be it known to you, my Lord, that Simon Peter, who for the sake of the true faith and the most sure foundation of his doctrine was set apart to be the foundation of the church, All right. I mean, and Matt, you know, like when the fathers talk about how Peter is the foundation, or even some of them call him the foundation stone,

that's a reference back to in the first century, the temple was built on a rock, and this rock was known as the foundation stone. So then that's another thing to keep in mind, that when Jesus builds his new temple, his church, it's built on another rock, and that rock is Peter. We're going to need you to write a book called Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Peter, unless Peter's already looking into doing that. Here's another quote from Origen in the 200s. Look at Peter, the great foundation of the church, that most solid of rocks upon whom Christ built the church. And what does our Lord say to him? Oh, you of little faith. He says, why do you doubt?

Okay. So he still, he rebukes Peter for doubting, but still calls him the most solid of rocks. Yeah. I mean, you know, even Eusebius, he talks about in his writings, you know, why, for instance, Mark is based off of the testimony of Peter, right? But then why doesn't Peter mention it in his own testimony? And Eusebius gives the explanation from John Mark that it appears as if Peter was hesitant to share that information with others, or, you know, because in the next passage, he, you know, he gets called, or, you know, Christ says, get behind me, Satan, right? So the same time that Peter is elevated and Christ shows like how much he sees in Peter, Peter then lets him down, right? And it's a tragic but beautiful representation of the Christian life,

right? But the point is that it seems as if Peter was hesitant to share that kind of information about himself. For instance, Peter, I think in 1 Peter 5, 9 or 2, 9, like he prefers calling himself a fellow shepherd, right? That doesn't take away from what Christ said about Peter, right? But, you know, and then that has to all be put into context. Okay, so let me just, let me read one more Eastern father here, Ephraim the Syrian, who I just love. He's a beautiful poet, has called Mary immaculate, among other things. So he's writing in the 300s here. Jesus said, Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the Holy Church. I called you Peter because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a

church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows. You are the chief of my disciples. So again, if there are any Protestants watching, I mean, you could say the church is wrong, but you would then have to say, and it's super weird how all of these early Christians seem to agree with the Catholic interpretation of Peter and the papacy. Yeah, I mean, and the book that I was referring to, actually, I found it now. So it's The Tradition of the Syriac Church of Antioch Concerning the Primacy and the Prerogatives of St. Peter and His Successors, the Roman Pontiffs. And you can find this online in the public

archives, right, or the internet archive. And what some of these fathers will talk about is, for instance, Peter being the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff being the supreme patriarch, or for instance, the other patriarchs being the inferior to the superior Roman patriarch. So there are those things that are said by the fathers. And I think now people are going to say, OK, Swan, pull up a quote. So I'll try to do that. Right. But, you know, I came here more focused on the question of the biblical side. But let me see if I can if I can pull up that quote there. But, yeah, I mean, while we're while we're doing that matt i think one thing that uh let's

see if i could get it i think one thing that i could do is probably just like finish out the argument here and then we can and then i can search for the quote you know that's fine why don't we why don't we do that finish out the argument and then i think we'll have to we'll probably move over to questions if that's okay i know there's a lot more you'd like to get to but we may not have the time oh yeah so maybe you can finish out the argument for that. We'll then kind of move into a time of Q&A because a lot of these questions might lead into the very things

you want to talk about anyway. And maybe during that time, you can look for that quote. So go for it. Yeah. And like, yeah, we might also need a part two because there's way more. There's just so much more.

What we need is a doctoral dissertation. Yeah. I mean, you know... That's what we need is a doctoral dissertation yeah i mean you know that's what we need yeah yeah yeah i've probably done enough for it but anyway okay so then aside from the fact that both peter and eliakim are compared to objects the second thing is that both of them appear first on the list of their king's disciples so for instance in his book ancient israel its life and institutions archaeologist Roland DeVoe writes, quote, This vizier used to report every morning to the Pharaoh and receive his instructions. He saw the opening of the gates of the royal house, that is, of the various officers of the palace, and then the official day began. All the affairs of the land passed through his hands. All important documents received his seal.

All officials were under his orders. This is obviously the dignity which Joseph exercised according to Genesis. He had no one above him except the Pharaoh, and he was appointed over the whole land of Egypt. He held the royal seal, Genesis 41, 40-44. And to describe his dignity, in the Bible, it says that Pharaoh put him in charge of his house. He made him, in fact, his master of the palace, Genesis 41, 40-45, 8. Like the Egyptian vizier, the master of the palace, Genesis 41, 40, 45, 8. Like the Egyptian vizier, the master of the palace was the highest official in the state. Eliakim's name comes first in the list of 2 Kings 18, 18. He alone appears with the king in 1 Kings 18, 3. And Yotham or Jotham bears this title when

he acts as regent of the kingdom, 2 Kings 15, 5, as the vizier did in the absence of pharaoh okay so there's a lot there and i'm going to unpack that so first off some people have raised the objection that in the new testament peter is only taking on the priestly aspects of a like him or people have made the argument that a lycan was just a high priest and he wasn't a prime minister roland devoe is making the argument here and this is one of the authoritative texts in terms of ancient Israelite archaeology and study, that the office of vizier or prime minister in Egypt, the position of prime minister that Joseph enjoyed under the pharaoh, eventually was translated over into the Davidic monarchy itself. So to say that Eliakim was not a prime minister stands against the archaeology and

research on ancient Israel itself. Now, moreover, when it mentions, for instance, Eliakim is mentioned first in the list of 2 Kings 18.18, we also know that Peter's name is mentioned first in the list of his king's disciples. Mark 3.16-19, Matthew 10. 2-4, Luke 6, 14-16, Acts 1-13. Matthew 10-2 even calls Peter first, or protos, which is meant, quote, not just first on the list, but a privileged status. Judas, the most dishonored, is last. This is from Dale Allison in the Oxford Bible Commentary. Okay, so now let me finish out the argument by just talking about succession, supremacy, and infallibility. Okay, so when it comes to succession, we know that the prime ministerial office had singular succession.

So before Eliakim, there were Shebna, Azra, 1 Kings 16.9, Jotham 15.5, and Nahishar 4.6. 1 Kings 16.9, Jotham 15.5, and Nahishar 4.6. When it comes to supremacy, the keys would make you second in command to the king or to David's son. So for instance, in page 603 of the New Bible Commentary, quote, the shutting and opening mean the power to make decisions which no one under the king could override. This is the power that was said of Eliakim. On page 158 of the Erdmann's Bible Dictionary, quote, In conferring upon Peter authority as head of the church, Matthew 16, 19,

Jesus uses the rabbinical technical terms to bind and to loose. In rabbinic usage, the terms mean to forbid and to permit with reference to interpretation of the law. And secondarily, to condemn or place under the ban and to acquit. Thus, Peter is given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life by virtue of revelation and subsequent leading of the Spirit, John 16, 13, and to demand obedience from the church,

reflecting the authority of the royal chamberlain or vizier in the Old Testament. And then it says, See Isaiah 22, 22. The Rutledge Guidebook to the New Testament, as I cited before, the prime minister could make decisions binding on the king's behalf over all of Israel. So the prime minister had universal jurisdiction. Roland DeVoe mentions how this was the highest official in the state and how the prime minister could function as the king or the regent of the kingdom when the king was not immediately present on the throne. And we know in John's gospel that Jesus says clearly that he is leaving the apostles, and he says, it is for your benefit that I am leaving. So notice then that I would say that Peter's prime ministerial powers kicked in after the ascension of Christ. Peter's prime ministerial powers kicked in after the ascension of Christ.

And for instance, J.M.D. Kelly in his book, and he's an Anglican, in his book, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, he talks about how Peter was the undisputed leader of the early church in Acts 1, 2, the early chapters, even up to 5. Peter is the head honcho. And then later the power dynamic changes a little bit with James becoming the bishop of Jerusalem. Okay, so Matt, let me just say one last thing about infallibility, and then I promise I will be done. Okay, so when it comes to binding and loosing, as I said before, it was the power of the rabbis to interpret scripture and to discipline the community. This was what it means to have the power to bind and loose, all right? So Christ clearly gives this to the apostles and to Peter in Matthew 16, 19 and Matthew 18, 18.

And if you want to question me on this, go to Craig S. Keener in his 2014 IVP New Testament commentary. Now, what is noted here is that to say that heaven stands behind one's binding and loosing is, in essence, infallibility. So, for instance, Keener, in his 2014 commentary, he writes, quote, Many Jewish people felt that the Jewish high court, or the Sanhedrin, acted on the authority of God's tribunal in heaven, in a sense ratifying its decrees. So when Jesus mentions that heaven will back the binding and loosing of the apostles, Jesus is in effect saying, my rabbis, my apostles have the backing of heaven. They have the divine endorsement of God himself. For instance, the Urban's commentary on the Bible, it notes that

this is a divine endorsement of the apostles. The New Interpreter's Bible commentary calls it a divine ratification of the apostles. R.T. France, in his commentary on Matthew, notes that it's divine guidance of the apostles. And then I want to make one last point, and then I'm done, all right? So this is the key thing. The power to bind and loose can be passed to two successors. When you see the apostles laying their hands on men and ordaining them, they are giving them the power to bind and to loose. So for instance, in the Oxford Companion to the Bible by Michael Coogan and Bruce Metzger, they mentioned the fact that the laying on of hands was used not only to give the Holy Spirit,

but to also ordain men into ministry. And I want to close with this. So Alfred Edersheim, in his book, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, he writes this, quote, the judges of all these courts, the great Sanhedrin and lower tribunals, were equally set apart by ordination, semika, originally that of the laying on of hands. Ordination was conferred by three, of whom one at least must have himself been ordained and able to trace his ordination through Joshua and to Moses. When St. Irenaeus and St. Tertullian demand the succession list of the bishops, they're not inventing a doctrine in the second century. They're referring back to the practice of the Pharisees and the Jewish authorities in the first century.

And that's where I'm going to leave my case. Beautiful. Thank you so much, Suhan. Hey, before we go to questions, I want to bring up Acts 15, because this is a verse that sometimes Protestants bring up to show why Peter wasn't the head of the church. And then I've even heard Catholic apologists try to use it to show that Peter is, and I don't find the Catholic position, or at least those Catholic apologists, very convincing. So this is the council at Jerusalem. I just want to maybe read this if that's okay, so we have the context. The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter, and after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, brothers, you know that in the early days, God made a choice among men, among you, sorry, that by my mouth, the Gentiles should hear the

word of the gospel and believe, and God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, etc., etc. and he made no distinction between us and them, etc., etc. Once he finishes in verse 12, it says, And all the assembly fell silent. I've heard Catholic apologists say, See, that's what we should do when the Pope speaks, which I just don't find convincing.

I think it's eisegesis, because it says they fell silent and they started listening to Barnabas and Paul. Anyway, the point is it would seem that James is the one with the authority, not Peter. Because it says in verse 13, right after that, James replied, Brothers, listen to me. And then he brings into evidence, as it were, what Simon Peter has said. And then he says, Therefore my judgment. He doesn't refer to Peter's judgment. He makes his own judgment.

Is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, etc., etc. argue for, it would seem that this would have been made explicit in the first council that the church had, or at least you would see a sort of deference, at least, given to Peter that we don't see. How do you respond to that? Yeah, I mean, so one of the things to keep in mind is what you are expecting to find, right, when you're looking for evidence for the papacy, because some people are expecting to find like this Rambo figure, right, throughout all of history and throughout all of scripture. Yossi has done a good video on this or series of videos. And even in my dialogue with Ubi Petrus on my channel, he kind of recognized too, like the Catholic position. So in one sense, like the Pope can act alone, right? And declare dogma ex cathedra, right?

Without the need of the manifest consent of the bishops, right? But then at the same time, though, there is this general preference that the Pope, you know, work with his brother bishops and that the bishops, right? But then at the same time, though, there is this general preference that the Pope, you know, work with his brother bishops, and that the bishops be in communion with him, okay? So that's just a nuance to keep in mind, because I actually do think this quote-unquote Rambo figure that we're looking for to justify Vatican I, in my scholarship, I've argued that Acts chapter 5, verse 5 and verse 11 are actually where you get that. So I didn't get time to get to that today, but in my published paper on the Haythrope Journal, Roman and Catholic, I make that argument in full. And that argument basically says that Peter is seated on the throne of Moses, and the throne of Moses was the symbol of the legal authority of Moses over all of Israel.

But I don't have time to get to that. Right. But when it comes to Acts 15, what I would say in response is that is twofold. Right. So one is that Peter appears to be Peter appears to be acting as King David in this council, because in First Chronicles, chapter 28, you have the Council of Jerusalem in the Old Testament. And this also concerned the building of the temple and its definition and structure. So, for instance, both of the passages mentioned, so Acts 15.4 and 1 Chronicles 28.1, that the most important men showed up to this council. And then you also see Acts 15.7, 1 Chronicles 28.2, both Peter and David rise before the assembly and address them. And then in Acts 15.7 and 1 Chronicles 28.4, both claim before everyone else that they were chosen from the rest for their mission. And then what's interesting here too, is that both of the gatherings are called Ekklesia in Greek. So that's 1 Chronicles 28.2 and Acts 15.22.

So one of the other arguments that I've been deploying is that when Peter is portrayed, so I'm making this argument here that Peter is being portrayed here as the vicar of Christ. And not only does Peter, so in this passage, Peter is transferred or given types that were associated with Christ. So we know that King David and Moses are types for Christ. What I argue is that in the book of Acts, you see in Acts 15, Peter inherit the type of King David to himself from Christ. And then in Acts 5, you see him become the new Moses, right then okay so I can go on but I just want to finish out this point so when it comes to for instance examples of pet shrine primacy in this council I would first point out that when you

mentioned for instance when Peter spoke and on the assembly was quiet it seems like the assembly was quiet while Paul Barnabas was speaking and not necessarily because of Peter? How's my connection? Okay. It slowed down for a second, but you're right now, I think. Okay, cool. So then the important thing is that Peter prepares the way for the other apostles to speak.

Because prior, it talks about how there was much debate. And then Peter rises up. He sets the stage for Paul and Barnabas and eventually for James to make the ruling, right? And then we see in Acts 15, 11, Peter talks about how we're not saved by circumcision. We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, and he uses we. So he is speaking on behalf of the entire church in Acts 15, 11. Now, one of the arguments that I've heard is that because James is the bishop of Jerusalem, because he's the local bishop, he makes the ruling over Jerusalem, so to respect his power as bishop. But then notice that James reiterates Peter's words in his ruling, Acts 15, 13 to 21. So he references back to what Peter said and just says, I am in agreement with Peter. So this bishop of Jerusalem is in

communion with this Pope Peter, so to speak. And to kind of further the argument that I've been making about the idea that Peter inherits the types of Christ, in this book by Roger David Aust, he's a Lutheran scholar, it's titled Simon Peter's Denial and Jesus is Commissioning Him as His Successor in John 21, 15 to 19. This Lutheran scholar argues, based on the Judaic background of the Gospel of John, that Peter becomes head shepherd of Israel and is the successor of Christ. This is a Lutheran scholar looking at the Jewish sources. And then I combined the scholarship with my study of the book of Acts. And I came to the conclusion that Peter is also portrayed as the new Moses and the head shepherd of Israel and is seated on the throne of Moses. All right.

Dude, this is really great. I said to you before we went on air, I'm glad you exist. I'm glad you exist because God wanted you to exist and that you are a good in and of yourself whether or not you had the intellect and the time to do this research but

glory to Jesus Christ that he's permitted you to do a deep dive into this stuff okay before just so everybody knows we are going to take a time of questions

if you want to ask a question if you're a patron go over the top post over on Patreon right now feel free to go ask a question we'll make sure you get your answers there. To get your question here on YouTube, make sure I don't see it by sending it. Send a super chat so I will see it is what I meant to say. And we'll go from there. But before we do anything else, I want to suggest that people go and check out Halo. Halo is a Catholic app that will help you

pray and meditate in a truly Catholic way. It leads you through different prayer experiences, like meditations on the scripture, like the Holy Rosary, like a nightly examine. And behind these prayer experiences, if you will, you can play Gregorian chant or synth music. It's a beautiful way to stay committed to prayer. So if you're somebody who knows you should be praying but finds it difficult, Halo can really help you with that. So click the link in the description below, go over to Halo and sign up for free on their website. You can download the app right now. It has free content. If you want to get access to everything, however, again, use that link below,

halo.com slash mattfrad. You'll get a month and you'll to get access to everything, however, again, use that link below, hallo.com slash Matt Fradd. You'll get a month, and you'll get to try out everything that's available on that app. Hallo, H-A-L-L-O-W dot com slash Matt Fradd. They even have sleep stories. You can have Father Mike Schmitz read you a sleep story. I mean, how good is that? Hallo.com slash Matt Fradd. Hallo.com slash Matt Fradd. hallo.com slash mattfradd.

All right, man, let's do this. Let's do it. First of all, it's lovely to have Reason and Theology here. Good to see you, my friend. He says we need to have more papacy videos. All right, let's take some questions here. Daniel, and by the way, we've got quite a number of questions, so feel free to be

thorough, but maybe succinct if you could. Let's see here. Daniel says, why can't our separated brethren understand Jesus is the builder and he alone can build his church as he sees fit? I'm not sure if Protestants would disagree with that, but what's your response? And I'm not sure if Protestants would disagree with that, but what's your response? I mean, so, I mean, there's a lot of ways that you could probably take this question. So one of the points that I want to make is that various other scholars, when they've interpreted, for instance, Matthew 16, 18, they note that Jesus is portrayed as the architect or the builder of the church. But then Peter is portrayed as the rock of the church, right? And so that distinction should be clear, and that's why it makes no sense to say that when Jesus is the architect,

suddenly he becomes the rock, right? He's, you know, like, he's the one that's directing the growth here. And then even D.A. Carson, in his 1984 commentary, he mentions the fact that, you know, some Protestants want to say, no, no, no, Christ is the cornerstone, right? He's the rock. And then Carson responds to them, one of the leading evangelical Protestant New Testament scholars, by saying, well, no, types or images can be used for multiple people in multiple ways, right? So sometimes Peter is portrayed as the rock here in Matthew, Christ is referred to as the cornerstone in the epistles, or even in Ephesians 2.20, it talks about how the church is built on the foundation of the apostle and the prophets. So you have to look at the context. Okay, this super chat comes from Melissa. So are we calling Peter the chief cornerstone and not

Jesus? Absolutely not. Christ is the chief cornerstone. But then we also have to respect the words of our Lord Jesus Christ that he called Peter Kephas, which means rock. Okay. Based Byzantine says, can Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology be reconciled with the teaching of the papacy? I think the Orthodox are concerned about potential ultramontanism. For those who aren't aware, what's ultramontanism? Right. So, I mean, it's during the First Vatican Council, there were kind of these two various camps. And one of these camps was known as ultramontanism. And this idea here was

that the Bishop of Rome was basically so powerful, right, that no matter what he said and what he did, every single thing, no conditions, no checks and no balances, right? He could just simply do whatever he wanted. And to the point where even like every little saying, every little thing that he did was infallible and just like, you know, reeking with impeccability, right? The point that I want to make here in response is that first, because I, for instance the orthodox will say for instance you know they won't ever believe by divine providence that the bishops will all be in council and then they'll just all die right because if that were the case and the church

would die so they believe by divine providence that god will protect the church as a catholic i'm going to say the same thing about the sea of Peter, and that in particular, with the typological arguments I've made, with Christ recreating the new Israel, the Davidic monarchy, he has this prime ministerial position. This prime ministerial position is able to make rulings second in command to the king. No one under him can overrule these decisions. Our ecclesiology should match the new Israel because Christ is the king of Israel. should match the new Israel, because Christ is the King of Israel. So one of the concerns that Ubi brought up in your friendly discussion with him was, that was what the video was called, I'm not just referring to it as a friendly discussion, he said, okay, so it would seem that the way the Catholic Church now views the papacy,

given the First Vatican Council, is essentially, in one sense, it kind of makes the other bishops superfluous. I mean, maybe they're not superfluous in their own little region, but what's the point of calling them all together to have them hash something out if, in the end, it's just the Pope who's going to come in and make the declaration anyway? What was your response to him on that? Yeah, so I mean, in that particular conversation, I don't recall exactly what my response was. But one thing to point out, too, is that with the first Vatican Council, it was ended prematurely. So the next part of Vatican I was going to talk about the relationship of the bishops to the bishop of Rome. And then, you know, of course, Vatican II deals with that relationship.

So it talks about how the bishops have to be in communion with the center of unity, which is the bishop of Rome. And as I mentioned before, the church fathers refer to the See of Peter as the center point of unity in the church. And then they'll talk about, too, how the bishops, if they all speak continuously and authoritatively on an issue, then that can also be part of the infallible magisterium of the church. But this idea that they become superfluous or unnecessary, I don't think is the case at all. The pope can, if he wants to, form dogma and make declarations ex cathedra. And he can, if necessary, when the bishops are split and divided, settle the dispute, right, if it so comes to that point. So I wouldn't say that the bishops become superfluous on even the Roman Catholic picture.

And I mean, I'm sure there's more that can be said by like Eric and Michael Loftin and others and Elijah Yossi, but I think that at least should deal with the worry. Okay. Some of these questions may have come up prior to our discussion, so if you've already answered them, feel free just to take a quick swipe at them. Ryan Pope says, well, we did address this, but let me just ask it again. Feel free just to say, let's move on. But if there's such a striking parallel between Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22, why don't we see more church fathers making the connection? He says, appreciate you and congrats on the debate with Yubi. Oh, yeah.

I know Ryan Pope. He's a good friend of mine. And that's such an awesome last name to have. But anyway, I think that's his actual last name. It is, yeah. Right. So why don't more of the fathers mention it? The first thing I'm going to say is that one is that independent of whether or not the father said it, does the argument hold up?

So are there compelling grounds for believing it based on the Jewish context, the authorial intent of the Gospel of Matthew, and so on and so forth? The second thing then is that you have to recognize too, that sometimes the fathers are under different historical contingencies. So the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that they would have mentioned every single iota in detail, which I don't think is a sustainable burden of proof. And I also think the first point I made is a counterexample to that assumption. The third point I want to make is that at least the Syriac fathers do recognize the parallel, right? So they do mention this parallel. And then, you know, to kind of use an analogy or, you know, to make two points real quick. One is that Timothy McGrew, a philosopher of history, or he's a Bayesian philosopher, but he's written on the subject of history.

He mentions the point that arguments from silence are often extremely tenuous and that there are often a host of reasons why a source that we would expect to mention something don't mention something right and the second thing that i want to mention um and i think the point is leaving my mind but i guess i'll leave it at that you know so okay let's see let's see that's fine here's a question about too many things at once yeah jess Jess Bullard. Thanks for your super chat, Jess. Jess says, if the binding loosing language corresponds with the Sanhedrin, how do we arrive at something beyond loosing of Old Testament law on the Gentiles? questioner is asking, you know, we see the apostles use their binding and loosing power in the Council of Jerusalem, and even Paul in his own epistles, talking about why we move beyond the kind of the Sinai covenant and the laws of Moses and circumcision to enter the covenant, right? And I guess the argument here would be the fact that the laying on of hands was the

recognized means by which the Pharisees and the rabbis would pass on their binding and loosing authority and in effect then their successors so for instance um binding okay so for instance christ mentions in matthew 23 2-3 that the pharisees and the scribes have to be obeyed because they're seated on the throne of Moses. The throne of Moses was instituted, of course, during the time of Moses in Exodus 18.26 and Deuteronomy 17.8-14 or 13. And the point here is that the high court of Moses lasted from Moses to Christ some 1,400 years, and the methods of ordination were often the laying on of hands. So my point is this, if the laying on of hands could So my point is this. If the laying on of hands could institute authorities with binding and loosing powers for 1400 years

to interpret the law, form dogma, and discipline the community, then why would the rabbis of the new Moses, of the Messiah, cease after the first generation? And clearly they didn't think, the earliest Christians didn't think the power of the apostles ended with the apostles. Okay. Here's a question from one of my patrons, Arthur Rowland. He says, hey, Matt, I am currently converting to Eastern Orthodoxy, but I'm open to Catholicism and even love Catholicism.

But the papacy is where I'm conflicted. The Orthodox Church teaches that when Christ speaks to Peter in Matthew 16, 18, he is making a pun with Peter's name, but also that power is given to all the apostles. There also seems to be a historical shift to the patriarch of Constantinople once Constantine moves there and makes it New Rome. Anyways, I'd love to get some clarity here just to clarify I'm converting from Baptist to Eastern Orthodox. Oh, that's pretty cool. Who asked that question? Arthur Rowland. Okay, well, I just want to say—

It's always very impressive when you have like a Baptist converting to Orthodoxy who still chooses to be a patron of yours. So thank you so much, Arthur. Yeah, and just because Arthur, you know, because you're once Baptist or in the process of leaving the Baptist community, I just want to say, like, you know, I see a kindred spirit in you. So I'm very happy that you asked your question. It's a good one. Okay, so there are two parts to this question. Yeah, feel free to be a little more long-winded than I've allowed you to be up until now. I know I've been saying keep these succinct, but I think this does merit some time if you'd like to take some time to answer.

Sure, and also, have we gone over two hours, Matt? An hour and 32 minutes. Oh, okay. Okay. I just want to be careful. Yeah, you're fine. Right. Okay. So when it comes to the first question, there's this question on whether or not Peter uniquely received the keys or whether or not there is a unique commission to Peter or if all the apostles share in it in an equal sense with Peter to some extent. Right. And then the second question was about Constantinople and New Rome. OK, so let me go to the first one. So when it comes to the first question on Peter uniquely receiving the keys, one of the points that I've made in my own work, right, is that, for instance, if Christ had said in Matthew chapter 18, verse 18, and whatever you open shall be, whatever you open, none shall shut, whatever you shut,

none shall open. If Christ used the words opening and shutting, right, in Matthew 18, 18, and he did also in Matthew 16, 19, then I think you could make the argument that the keys entail the power to open and shut, right? So then you could do the deduction backwards if that were the case. But then my argument here is that Christ uses binding and loosing in 18, 18, because binding and loosing was known for having judicial disciplinary purposes, right? So the apostles have the power to have these disciplinary judicial powers, as does Peter. Now, we know that the keys to the, and this was an independent metaphor that the Jews would have understood. So you don't need to reference the keys in order to understand what Christ is talking about in Matthew 18, 18. Now, in Matthew 16, 19,

we know that the keys of Eliakim have two functions. The first is that they represent the authority of the prime minister. And then the second thing is that they also allow the prime minister to open the gates of the royal city. OK, so then my point here is that Christ uses binding and loosing as a way in which for which people can identify, okay, the typological parallel back to opening and shutting in Isaiah 22, 22, right? That's why he uses binding and loosing. But binding and loosing don't necessitate the same power of the keys in terms of opening and shutting. There's an analog there. So in other words, the reverse argument would be that if the Orthodox interpretation

were correct, then when Christ mentions the keys and then he mentions binding and loosing, then he's being redundant, right? Whereas in Matthew 18, 18, he only has to mention binding and loosing because those were independent metaphors that were well understood during the time. And for instance, in Rabbi Samuel Locke's commentary, a rabbinic commentary on the New Testament, he mentions the point that although binding and loosing and opening and shutting, they're similar, but they're not necessarily unifical. So the point that I'm making here is that Christ uses binding and loosing in Matthew 16, 19 with the keys in order to get to Isaiah 22, 22. But Christ mentions binding and loosing in Matthew 18, 18,

just to convey the disciplinary power of the apostles. Does that make sense, Matt? So because you have binding and loosing, that doesn't entail you have the keys. Now, where I think that the apostles do share in the keys of Peter is Acts chapter 15. So in Acts chapter 15, according to the Wycliffe Commentary on the Bible published by Moody Press, which is a Protestant press, what the author of the commentary on Matthew in that particular source says, first he chastises papal supremacy, the Wycliffe Bible Commentary chastises papal supremacy as like a Romish invention,

right? But then they do recognize that in Matthew 16, 19, Christ gives the keys to Peter alone, okay? And that in Acts chapter 15, in some sense, Peter, with the other apostles, opens the kingdom of heaven to the Gentiles, right? So I would say that it's in that context of Acts 15 where you see the apostles participate within the keys with Peter, but it's not going to work necessarily in Matthew 16, 19 and Matthew 18, 18. Because even if, so even if I concede that binding and loosing, right, in some sense, you know, is more closely related to opening and shutting, in some sense, you know, is more closely related to opening and shutting, Peter still has the second function of the keys, which is the symbol of prime ministerial authority.

And I mentioned already the parallels between Eliakim and Peter, which make it a singular office of prime minister in the new covenant. So I think that there are enough reasons for a Catholic to at least have a valid counter interpretation. And there are compelling grounds for thinking that Peter is the prime minister here. Now, when it comes to New Rome and Constantinople, I wanted to mention the fact, and you know, of course, we didn't get to this because we ran out of time, right? But for instance, Roger David Oss, John Bright, Georgie Ladd, in their writings on the kingdom of God, all of them mention the fact that the Jews believed during the time of Jesus that when the Messiah would come, he would conquer Rome. So that's what they believed. And what I'm going to say here is that I think Constantine's conversion and the

creation of Constantinople as a new Rome, I think that plays a part in the messianic prophecy or fulfillment of Christ. But the death of Peter in Rome, the death of the prime minister in Rome, in old Rome, has to also be included in that narrative. Because when Christ conquers Rome, he conquers both the old and the new Rome, right? So I want to say to my Orthodox brothers and sisters, like, okay, yeah, I think that belongs in the narrative of Christ's messianic reign, the conversion of Constantine. But what about old Rome and the death of Peter, the prime minister, and the successors that follow from him? Okay.

Thank you. Here's a question from May Habes. She says, was and is Peter's body historically acknowledged and identified? Interested to know a bit of backstory of how they confirmed it was really him. Loving this dialogue. Keep it up, gents. Right. I mean, there's an entire book on this, I think, called like The Bones of the Fisherman or The Tomb of the Fisherman or something like that.

I mean, in addition to other evidence, I believe that is what it was said on the tomb. Here lies the bones of Peter the fisherman, or something to that effect. Yeah, I mean, so the bones that are left are kind of the spine of what we believe to be St. Peter's, you know, the remains of Peter, his spine, and you know, that sort of area of his body. From what I've heard, I don't think anyone really questions that Peter was in Rome. Okay, and I'm going to say no serious scholar questions that Peter was in Rome. Even Sean McDowell in his book, The Fate of the Apostles, I think he says it's highly probable that Peter died and was crucified. Well, he says possible that he was crucified in Rome upside down, right?

So yes, Peter's body or Peter's death, as a matter of historical certainty, occurred in Rome upside down, right? So yes, Peter's body, or Peter's death, as a matter of historical certainty, occurred in Rome. Peter was in Rome, that's not questioned. And then how they identified it was him, as you've mentioned the inscription on the tomb. And I think there have been some tests on the bones, the bone fragments of Peter, that at least confirmed something of a 2,000-year-old date. But I'm not sure about that. So just, you know, that's what I know on the subject. Yeah, that's fine. Thanks.

Let's see here. Drew Lowen says, Matt, can you ask if Suwan has explored any typological connections between Peter in Acts and Moses Joshua? Specifically, Acts 2 Pentecost and Exodus 32 Golden Calf, as well as Acts 5 Ananias. Okay, so I think he may know and just wants you to talk about what you talk about quite often. Yeah, I mean, so the Exodus part, I'm not sure about that one,

but like Acts 5, there's definitely a parallel there. And that's what I've talked to you about. Yeah, go on. Okay, let me go to my notes. I promise you I won't take 30 minutes to explain this. No, you're fine. Okay. Okay, so one of the things to point out then.

So John 21, 15 and 19, you see Christ give Peter three sheep. And this is the famous Petrine Commission to reinstate Peter into service to the kingdom. And then, you know, Christ says, feed my lambs, feed my sheep, feed my lambs. Right. OK, so one of the the first part of my argument is to establish that Peter is the new Joshua. So, for instance, we both know that Peter and Joshua are considered the primary disciples of their master. So in the ancient rabbinic commentaries or sources, Joshua was referred to as the primary disciple of Moses. I think he was even called the lion of Moses, right, or the cub of Moses.

And then we know, for instance, in the first century Jewish historian Josephus, that he uses the same Greek word for disciple, methetes, that the New Testament uses for the disciples to describe Joshua. So therefore, it's not unfair or anachronistic to say that both Peter and Joshua were the disciples of Moses, or in Peter's case, the new Moses, okay? So Peter is clearly having a primacy among the other disciples. Joshua, likewise, compared to the rest of the disciples of Moses, was likewise recognized having a primacy. And then we also know that Peter and Joshua received their flocks under similar circumstances.

So in verse 15 of John 21, 15 and 19, Christ calls Peter Simon, son of John. In Deuteronomy 34, 9, when Moses lays his hands on Joshua and fills him with some of his authority, it says he filled Joshua, son of Nun, with the Spirit. So in both ordination events, we see that the fatherhood of the disciple is mentioned in both contexts. Likewise, Christ tells Peter in verse 18 that someone will put rap-gird a belt on you. So as an allusion to his impending death, just as in Jewish tradition, Moses is described as being wrapped, girded, and veiled before his death and before picking Joshua as his successor. Sifra Pinhas 139 on Numbers 27 17. And then finally, Christ mentions that Peter's hand will be stretched out, presumably in a crucifixion like his, just as in Jewish tradition, Moses prayed to die with his hands outstretched like Aaron.

Now, here's the strongest piece of evidence that Peter and Joshua are types of each other. So, Roger David Os notes that both Peter and Joshua, the Lutheran scholar that I referenced before, both Peter and Joshua received the same three kinds of sheep. In Jewish tradition, Joshua receives, this is in the Avot of Rabbi Natan and 1 Enoch, which is written before the first century or completed around that time. Moses hands, quote, the smaller ones, the bigger, older sheep, and the young, strong sheep. In John 21, 15 to 17, Jesus begins with, quote, little lambs or sucklings, proceeds to young sheep, and ends with older, fully mature sheep. Both Jesus and Moses, according to Jewish tradition, hand on the same three sheep to their successor. In this case, for Christ, it's Peter.

In the case of Moses, it's Joshua. Thus, Roger David Austin, Lutheran scholar, concludes, quote, and Judaic texts based on this narrative. So Jesus, in turn, appoints Simon Peter to be his shepherd successor. And even when, Matt, I mentioned the Syriac fathers, the tradition of the Syriac Church of Antioch, which is available online, the church fathers there mentioned that Peter is the second Moses.

Or they talk about how Peter was made head shepherd of Israel and was given the flock. So they were aware of this parallel that I'm talking about. All right. Okay. So then, and then, you know, of course, you've already had Scott Han on to talk about how Jesus is the new Moses. And there's just, there's just no question about it. Right. Okay. So here's the important point. Jewish tradition around and after the time of Jesus taught that Moses handed his throne to Joshua. So, Ost writes, quote, The Testament of Moses, Sifra Pinhas 140 on Numbers 2719, and the Petret Moshe, each attest that Joshua received Moses' throne. So, he concludes, quote, So he concludes, quote,

Okay, so what does that mean if Peter's seated on the seat of Moses? We know based on the historical scholarship of Wolfgang Schrag in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, or Herbert Bassler and Marsha Cohen in the Gospel of Matthew and Judaic Traditions, that the throne of Moses stood for the seat of Moses, the chair of Moses, the cathedra of Moses. It stood for the power of the rabbis to interpret the law and demand the obedience of the people. And it also represents the power of the high court or the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem to bind the conscience of the people to their ex cathedra teaching. Because, okay, so ex cathedra, to use that phrase, it's kind of anachronistic in this context. But then again, if you were making a ruling from the throne of Moses, Moses cathedras,

then you were making a ruling from the chair of Moses. So hence, you could call it an ex cathedra ruling so in acts chapter 5 verse 5 and verse 11 we see that peter is able to exercise the powers of the throne of moses alone he doesn't have to go through the apostles or anybody else to use his binding and loosing authority so in deuteronomy 17 8 to 11 or 13 it talks about when moses instituted the high court before he died. So originally the ideas planted in his head in Exodus 18, 26 by Jethro, his father-in-law. So Jethro says, you know, Moses, it's not good that you're judging all these cases alone. You need to set up a court of, excuse me, a court of appeals where basically, you know, only the most difficult cases go to you, Moses. Notice that this sounds a lot like the vatican one structure of the church anyway um so in acts 5 verse 5 and verse 11 ananias and sephira they both disobey the apostles and peter when they leave some of their property and don't sell it

and give it away in jerusalem right and then in both contexts ananias and sephira fall dead context, Ananias and Sapphira fall dead. And then when Ananias dies, it says, all the people heard and were afraid. In verse 11, it says, and the entire church heard and was afraid. In Deuteronomy 17, verse 13, it says that if you dishonor or disobey the priest or the judge who is administering the ruling, right, then you will be put to death. And then it says, and all the people will hear and be afraid. That's what it says in Deuteronomy. And that's repeated in Acts chapter 5. So thus, Peter could exercise the power of the throne of Moses on his own because, as Roger David Oss pointed out, it's because Peter is seated on the throne of Moses

and becomes the new Moses in that way. And even for instance, Walter Kaiser and F.F. Bruce in their commentary, Hard Sayings of the Bible, they also acknowledge that Peter is the only apostle whose binding and loosing power was this dramatically and immediately endorsed by God. Okay, so then here's an argument that you could make for succession perhaps. So premise one, Peter's seat is the seat of Moses. Premise two, Peter's Roman successors are seated upon Peter's seat. Premise three, Peter's Roman successors

are therefore seated upon the seat of Moses. And that's how you get to Vatican I. Very good, thank you. All right, Swan, we have a few more questions. I don't mean to just quickly – I'm not trying to dismiss what you just said. It was excellent. For time's sake, we have to move on. Okay, so I think I've got three more questions for you, Swan,

and if we could try to keep these ones a little shorter, that would be helpful. David says, If everyone knew of the Petrine promise to the Pope at all times, as Vatican I says, why did the Pope have to send a crusade to Constantinople? Good. So in the paper that I wrote for the Haythorpe Journal, I deal with the interpretation of Vatican I, because I think oftentimes Vatican I is not quoted in context, right? So there's particularly a passage in session four where it talks about how, for no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age, that the most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles,

foundation of the Catholic Church, and then it talks about, oh, who was given the keys of the kingdom by Christ. I almost have this whole thing memorized. It talks about given the keys of the kingdom by Christ. I almost have this whole thing memorized. It talks about given the keys of the kingdom by Christ, who consecrated, and then talks about his Roman successors ruling, presiding in the Roman sea, because he consecrated the Roman sea with his blood, right? What I've argued in the paper that I published in the Haythorpe Journal, well, first off, that quote comes from the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD from Philip the Roman legate. So it is not a claim of Vatican I alone.

It's a claim that was made pre-schism, right? That's an important thing to keep in mind. And this was said in an ecumenical council, and insofar as I can tell, nobody objected to what Philip the Roman legate said. Philip the Roman legate said. The second thing to point out is that in that particular context, I think Christ is only referring to it being known in every age that Peter received the keys. That's the argument that I've raised there. And I mean, I go into, for instance, there are different translations of the Council of Ephesus and Vatican I that actually make it much more explicit that that's what Philip the Roman legate was intending, that it was known in every age that Peter received the keys. Now, some scholars like Jerry Walls and others have objected,

well, everybody knows that, so why did, you know, why did you have to mention it, right? Or like, isn't it surely like what was known in every age, the Roman interpretation of universal jurisdiction? My point is like, you know, let's be charitable, right? Like, why can't it be the case that Vatican I or the Council of Ephesus cite something everybody knew and doesn't question in order to use that as a premise to get to the conclusion on what the Council is saying about Peter? So, you know, there are good grounds from the translations of Vatican I from just being charitable with the sources that show that at least everyone knew that Peter received the keys. Now, the reception of that throughout history, that's an interesting question that I know that, for instance, Eric

Ybarra and others have addressed. So what I would say in response, Matt, you know, when St. John Henry Newman talks about the development of doctrine, he compares it to like a seed being planted, right? Or, you know, Jerry Walls uses the image of like an embryonic papacy, and I like that analogy. And the point here is that in the first century, everything that would eventually be manifested later was fully planted there by Christ. And then as time went on, the visible features of the papacy began to grow and expand, although it was already fully there, albeit in embryonic form or seed form in the person of Peter. So we have clues from the first century about what Christ intended for what was yet to come. Any, this person says, any reason why the key in Isaiah 22 is in the singular, while Matthew 16, it's in the plural right okay so two things right so

first uh matt do you have your car keys on you yep all right how many keys does it take into your car one key right one key form actually right so then like one one explanation is that it could be you know just like a plural singular kind of difference where it's not too substantial. So I say car keys, but technically it's only one key that gets into my car. The second thing is a good friend of mine, Sam Schmidt at St. Isidore's. He's going to just be crazy because I mentioned, but anyway, he brought up to me after my debate with the Protestant seminarian at St. Isidore's that the reason why Peter has two keys in the plural, or at least why it's a plural number of keys, is because he receives the keys of the Davidic monarchy and of the

kingdom of heaven, because in Christ the two kingdoms become one. All right, thank you. Let's maybe final question here from Tim Taft. He says, how would you respond? Yeah, all your friends are watching. How would you respond? This is Swan's mother. How would you respond to the argument that not a single one of the first seven ecumenical councils was invoked or presided over by a bishop of Rome. Yeah, I mean, so once again, like, I'm going to admit this to you, and I'm going to admit it to everybody, like, my main focus of study has been the interpretation of scriptures within the first century and within living memory. So So for instance, if you imagine, like, if you're going to make the case for Vatican I, you need scripture and history.

Like, the guys at Reason and Theology or elsewhere, those are the history guys. I'm trying to do the end of the scriptural part so that we can complete the case and get all the way there. So for instance, even if, so, you know, and see, I'm not sure about this particular point, but I remember that Eric mentioned in his debate with Jay Dyer that even some of the ecumenical councils make incredible claims about the Bishop of Rome and perhaps implying his universal jurisdiction. So if that's the case, then I'm not terribly worried. But I mean, surely like, you know, at least the presence of the Bishop of Rome was there, either through the legate or the person of Peter or the successor of Peter himself. So, I mean, I guess there are different ways of hashing that out.

But also you have throughout history, eventually the Pope being given a supervising role in the councils and so on, so forth. So, you know, I would have to do more research. And, you know, Matt, I don't want to come on here and pretend like I know things that I don't, right? I want to focus on being honest with my limitations and say, yeah, you should probably go talk to Eric, Michael, Elijah, and all the other guys there. Yeah, no, good. That's a great sign of both intelligence and humility, right? To know what you don't know and not pretend anything different. So it's been an absolute pleasure. This is the first time you and I have spoken via the internet. And it's just a joy. It's been a real joy to hear from you, to learn from you. I mean, we've mentioned it already. We've got links at the top of the description to all of your things so people can go check those out. But for those who are watching right now, where can they learn more about you? Yeah, I mean, so I have a Facebook page, Intellectual Conservatism, YouTube channel by the same name, Apple podcast by the same name.

And, you know, of course, I have a Patreon. I have an academia page, although I need to start updating that more. But, you know, I had some Eastern Orthodox friends reach out to me and they actually liked some of my theological papers. And then hopefully the Haythropp journal will, you know, eventually. So it depends on the copyright. But I'd like to share my paper at least publicly, if possible. I think at this point you can only share individually with people and, you know, keep it on a download like that. But, yeah, I mean, so hopefully my haythrope paper will will go out so everybody can read it although to make it public access costs like two thousand dollars and you

know i don't have that money so yeah yeah that's fair enough to make it oh i see what i mean so but you have to pay them two thousand dollars to make it public and then uh yeah so that you can just go straight on the website and just read it there rather than that's a way for them to cover their costs is it so instead of people buying it individually they're like okay fine we'll take two thousand okay fair enough yeah good stuff all right brother god bless you and uh and thanks so much also when's your book coming out come on i mean i've been thinking about finishing right actually writing a book over the summer on maybe just the papacy and its Jewish roots from the scriptures.

Honestly, like, you know, when you mention a doctoral dissertation, I would really love to one day write like an entire thesis on the, you know, both the scriptures and the historical development of Vatican I, so that we can finally have a complete theory of doctrinal development for the papacy. I'd love to complete that. And, you know, pray for my discernment, because I've been discerning with the Dominicans. So we'll see how that goes. Glory to Jesus Christ. Man, that's lovely. All right, Swan.

God bless and thanks for being here. Yeah, no problem. Thank you, Swan. God bless and thanks for being here. Yeah, no problem. Thank you, Matt.