***

[see all the other installments of this multi-part debate on my James White web page: second section]

***

Mr. White’s words will be in blue; my former words in green.

***

. . . the Torah was not merely ‘law’ but also ‘instruction’, i.e., it consisted not merely of fixed commandments but was adaptable to changing conditions . . . This adaptation or inference was the task of those who had made a special study of the Torah, and a majority decision was binding on all . . .

The commandments were further applied by analogy to situations not directly covered by the Torah. All these developments together with thirty-one customs of ‘immemorial usage’ formed the ‘oral law’ . . . the full development of which is later than the New Testament. Being convinced that they had the right interpretation of the Torah, they claimed that these ‘traditions of the elders’ (Mk 7:3) came from Moses on Sinai.

(J. D. Douglas, editor, The New Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 981-982)

Likewise, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church notes in its article on the Pharisees:

Unlike the Sadducees, who tried to apply Mosaic Law precisely as it was given, the Pharisees allowed some interpretation of it to make it more applicable to different situations, and they regarded these oral interpretations as of the same level of importance as the Law itself.

(F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, editors, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 1983, 1077)

This is the central assertion, in my opinion, and hence will be the primary focus of my response (which, to the shock of some, I will, eventually, get to).

I am shocked that White responded at all. I’ll be even more shocked if he actually tries to interact with my present reasoning, and either retract his opinions where necessary or fully defend them against the present scrutiny.

Next, Armstrong makes the interesting observation that the Pharisees did indeed have their “traditions” that were extra-biblical,

Correct. Now this is either historically verifiable or it is not. I have provided the documentation, especially in my last reply. This discussion needs to proceed on the grounds of verifiable historical fact, not presuppositionalism or wishful thinking. Also, I should reiterate that “extra-biblical” is not the same thing as “non-biblical” or “unbiblical” or “contrary to the Bible” or “a contradiction against the Bible.” It simply means “traditions which are not included in the letter of the Bible, but which are in perfect harmony with the Bible.” But a certain kind of Protestant (of which White is one) hears “extra-biblical” and they immediately equate that with “fallible [rather than infallible] traditions of men [rather than of God] which are obviously contrary to Scripture and not allowed by Scripture.” Ironically, this is contrary to Scripture, not the notion of tradition per se. But White labors under these false premises, and that weighs down the discussion and prevents it from ever becoming constructive, for those who think as he does.

. . . and since he is seeking to present as positive a picture of the Pharisees as possible, . . .

So was St. Paul, obviously, since, after all, he called himself a Pharisee (Acts 23:6). That’s pretty “positive,” I would submit. That said, I am “seeking” historical truth, not trying to pull off a silly ploy of selectively presenting facts which back me up and oppose what I oppose. We see that White is the one who wants (from all appearances) to avoid certain uncomfortable biblical and historical facts. Thus, he passed over the two extremely relevant citations from Protestant sources, which I happily provided for readers, a little bit above.

Those who have a weak case in the first place almost invariably pick and choose things from their opponents’ arguments, leaving out particularly damaging bits of evidence and argumentation. It’s one of the oldest tricks in the book. But I’m not interested in “debater’s tricks.” I’m interested in the truth. Period. I don’t deny that Mr. White has the same motivation; I just think that he has “debated” for so long that he uses cute little tricks that many might not notice. They come as easily and naturally to him as breathing or a heartbeat, and need not be conscious at all that he is engaging in these methods. I notice them, because I’ve been around the block a few times, debate-wise, too, and I don’t pick-and-choose when I reply. There is a right way and a wrong way to debate. The wrong way is called sophistry.

. . . he identifies the Sadducees as the “Jewish sola Scripturists and liberals of the time,” an odd combination when one thinks about it.

This is no more odd than “Protestants and sola Scripturists.” Neither position is a biblically-based one. Nor is it “odd” in light of the fact that it was Protestantism and its Bible Only rule of faith that produced (in terms of cultural milieu) what we know and love as moden liberal theology (and many of the larger modern cults and heresies, such as Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Christian Science). The ancient Arians, for example (who thought Jesus was created, and were similar to Jehovah’s Witnesses) believed in Scripture Alone, whereas the orthodox trinitarian Church believed in apostolic succession, tradition, and Church authority. It has always been those who accept a larger tradition, beyond, but in harmony with Holy Scripture, who preserve orthodoxy. Thus, Pharisees, preserved the ancient Jewish theological tradition which was developed into Christianity. Sadducees and their Bible-Only position, were rapidly rejecting several tenets which Christianity accepted, as noted previously.

In support of what he realizes is, in fact, his central assertion (the third point just noted), . . .

I didn’t “realize” anything. I consistently and openly developed my arguments from the beginning of the larger chapter on “Bible and Tradition.”

Armstrong seeks to establish more positive connections to Pharisaism (in reference to a passage that begins the longest denunciation of them in all of Scripture–don’t let that irony pass) by asserting that “it was precisely the extrabiblical (especially apocalyptic) elements of Pharisaical Judaism that New Testament Christianity adopted and developed for its own—doctrines such as resurrection, the soul, the afterlife, eternal reward or damnation, and angelology and demonology (all of which the Sadducees rejected).”

Exactly. Now, the interesting thing would be to see what White thinks of that, since he believes that Jesus’ view of the Pharisees was either totally or overwhelmingly condemnatory. But (not surprisingly at all), White doesn’t tell us. In the meantime, he opted to pass over the second half of this paragraph. Here it is:

The Old Testament had relatively little to say about these things, and what it did assert was in a primitive, kernel form. But the postbiblical literature of the Jews (led by the mainstream Pharisaical tradition) had plenty to say about them. Therefore, this was another instance of Christianity utilizing nonbiblical literature and traditions in its own doctrinal development. (p. 50)

Immediately the reader is probably surprised to discover that Christian beliefs in these areas are actually found in the traditions of the Pharisees (it is hard to refrain from refuting this directly from the previous chapter, but I shall do so for the moment) rather than from the Scriptures themselves, . . .

This is a classic, blatant, example of one of White’s many false, irrational dichotomies. Let me rephrase what he is arguing here, to make it more clear from a logical standpoint:

General undeniable premise or axiom:

Christian beliefs didn’t come from nowhere, and had historical pedigree (going back to Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David, among others).

1. White’s major unproven premise / conclusion (as his “argument” is logically circular, the two are identical) : Christian beliefs came solely from the Scriptures themselves.

2. Dave’s query: from what theological / cultural background did the Scriptures come? (answer: the Jews). And which Jewish group preserved that heritage most fully, without giving up indispensable doctrines? (answer: the Pharisees).

3. White’s hidden minor premise (#2) : What comes from Scripture cannot also come from a particular people, or school of the same people.

4. Dave’s assertion: many Christian beliefs can be derived historically from the Pharisees.

5. White’s ultimate premise / conclusion: Christian beliefs could not in any way be derived from the Pharisees because they were derived from Scripture.

The fallacy here is obvious. No argument was made; instead, a false dichotomy is accepted. But it is patently obvious that it is false, by the example of biblical inspiration:

1. God wrote inspired Scripture. It is, in fact, “God-breathed” (theopneustos).

2. Men [inspired and enabled by God] wrote inspired Scripture.

3. Conclusion (by White’s “logic”): this can’t be! One or the other had to write it, because it is a contradiction!

4. Historical Christian conclusion (Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox alike): both statements (#1 and #2) are true. God wrote through men, and preserved inspiration and infallibility despite human error.

White’s conclusion might hold for Islam, where it is believed that the Koran came down from heaven, written and delivered by Allah, with no human participation whatever, but not in Christianity. Therefore, his previous reasoning collapses by analogy:

Christian doctrine came from God through the Bible, but the Bible came through the Jews (culturally, historically) and Jewish writers (in terms of individual documents).

Both notions are true. But James White can’t see that, because presuppositional apologetics is proudly, self-consciously circular in its “logic.”

. . . let alone from the very traditions Jesus condemned so thoroughly (remember, we have only a few examples of explicit Pharisaical traditions on the lips of Jesus, but the Corban rule is one of them, and remember the Lord’s view of such things).

White apparently believes that if you repeat a half-truth or a fallacy enough times, people will start believing it. How many times now has he repeated this non sequitur (in light of all the relevant considerations)? Seven, eight times now?

Armstrong’s next point is to continue seeking to prop up the Pharisees as a group, pointing out that Paul respected Ananias in Acts 23:1-5, and that Paul said he was a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees” (Acts 23:6). I believe the reader can judge for himself the relevance to the point at hand.

Yes, so do I. So I’m delighted that White breezily dismisses a highly-important consideration and thinks it to be of no relevance or force whatsoever. I happen to think that it is, and I offered an actual argument in the previous installment for why I think so (citing my entire paragraph, rather than merely summarizing it). One continues to hope that White will raise himself to the level of rational argument in many of these crucial issues that he either mocks or cavalierly dismisses. I think people would be more impressed, were he to try that.

Next he misunderstands the reason why I cited the incident in Nehemiah 8, assumes I am trying to draw a parallel to the Pharisees and Moses’ seat (I was simply pointing out the centrality of the Word of God in worship, revival, and its reading in the gatherings of God’s people)

Fair enough, but then, that doesn’t resolve anything in this dispute, as no Christian of any stripe would deny this. I hear far more Scripture at every Catholic Mass than I ever did in Protestant services in my 13 years as an evangelical Protestant.

and can’t help but include yet another unfounded “swipe” by writing, “He (White) conveniently neglects to mention, however, that Ezra’s Levite assistants, as recorded in the next two verses after the Evangelical-sounding Amens, “helped the people to understand the law” (8:7) and “gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading” (8:8).” (p. 51).

Of course, I could respond that it is Mr. Armstrong who “conveniently neglects to mention” that such an observation is utterly irrelevant to either my use of the text, nor my understanding of Scriptural sufficiency. The fact that instruction was offered is perfectly in line with what I do as an elder in the church every Lord’s Day;

That’s right, but that is not the sense in which the text is relevant to this discussion, which has to do with historical Judaism, and what they believed, not present-day (historically “Johnny-come-lately”) Baptist ecclesiology, and what it holds, with regard to the issue of Bible and Tradition. White is consistent with his own false premises, in his own religious practice, but he can’t apply those to the ancient Jews. That is where his inconsistency lies.

further, to be relevant to Armstrong’s position, this instruction would have to include the binding of extra-biblical traditions upon the people, which, of course, is not what the text says.

It’s relevant precisely because the Jews then, and the Pharisees later, held to oral tradition, which was incorporated into its understanding and interpretation of Scripture. We know that from the historical record. It’s true that the text does not specifically mention this, but once we understand what the Jews have historically believed about oral tradition (cultural background being a very important consideration in good exegesis), it is far more plausible to conclude that it was part of this “instruction”; far more than engaging in historical revisionism, superimposing the 16th century Protestant innovation of sola Scriptura onto the text and Jewish worldview, and concluding that only Scripture was discussed, and that no “extra-biblical” tradition whatsoever was involved. History, as so often, tilts the discussion decisively in the “pro-traditional” (or “proto-Catholic”) direction. But let’s also include my next paragraph (since White did not), which greatly clarified my meaning and intent:

So this supposedly analogous example (that is, if presented in its entirety; not selectively for polemical purposes) does not support the position of White and Gundry that the authority of the Pharisees applied only insofar as they sat and read the Old Testament to the people (functioning as a sort of ancient collective Alexander Scourby, reading the Bible onto a cassette tape for mass consumption), not when they also interpreted (which was part and parcel of the Pharisaical outlook and approach). (p. 51)

Gratuitous swipes at a person’s character and honesty based upon ignorance of that person’s beliefs are one element of reading “apologetic” literature that I find very distasteful.

I made no such swipe (and vehemently deny that I did). I think White is honestly, sincerely engaging the text, according to his worldview and theology. But I think he is severely (sincerely) biased, and often operates on false and inadequately-examined premises, which often leads to atrocious and false conclusions. But if White finds this so “distasteful,” then why did he make precisely this accusation against me in our earlier runaround over my book? (italics added):

Armstrong simply doesn’t understand the process of scholarly examination of a text, and as a result, runs headlong into walls trying to act like he does.

(The Catholic Verses: Luke 1:28 [Part II], 1-1-05)

This kind of utterly amazing mishandling of Scripture is sad to observe, let alone to realize it has appeared in publication.

(The Catholic Verses: Luke 1:28 [Part III], 1-2-05)

This next statement is especially hypocritical and enlightening, given White’s false charge that I have accused him of dishonesty:

In essence, this means that instead of blaming ignorance for his very shallow misrepresentations of non-Catholic theology and exegesis, we must now assert knowing deception.

(Armstrong’s Reading List, 12-31-04)

So White is quick to accuse me falsely, without sufficient grounds, of what he clearly did to me. In Christian circles, we call that hypocrisy, and I do openly accuse White of that, but not dishonesty. And this is doubly ironic, since we are discussing the Pharisees, and White endlessly repeats his mantra that Jesus accused them of hypocrisy, which we all knew already, so it adds nothing to the discussion. My explanation fully incorporates that fact into the analysis.

Next we have an odd, brief explosion of a complete straw-man argument:

One does not find in the Old Testament individual Hebrews questioning teaching authority. Sola Scriptura simply is not there. No matter how hard White and other Protestants try to read it into the Old Testament, it cannot be done. (p. 51)

For some, this is a form of argument, but for most, it is little more than another “confession of faith.” What teaching authority did individual Hebrews not question?

I’m delighted that Mr. White is inquisitive enough to ask. That indicates a willingness to learn. Good for him! To give just two examples of many:

1) Deuteronomy 17:8-13: the Levitical priests had binding authority in legal matters (derived from the Torah itself). They interpreted the biblical injunctions (17:11). The penalty for disobedience was death (17:12), since the offender didn’t obey “the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God.” Cf. Deuteronomy 19:16-17, 2 Chronicles 19:8-10.

2) Ezra 7:6,10: Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding, under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death (7:25-26).

I think that with a possible death penalty lurking in the background, most folks would be inclined to obey. But we know that they were often disobedient, as all of us are at one time or another. In any event, there was clearly a strong authoritarianism in place, even regarding matters of interpretation of Scripture.

The OT Papacy? The Vatican in Jerusalem? We aren’t told.

Well, now “we” have been (and I had presented this kind of biblical data long ago on my website, so it is nothing new); and I would love to hear a counter-response, not only to this, but to all my argumentation. I won’t hold my breath, given Mr. White’s abysmal past track record of fleeing from rational discussions, just when they get interesting, and when his positions look the weakest and most indefensible.

It is ironic indeed, in a passage where Jesus instructs His disciples and the crowds to examine the teachings and actions of the Pharisees, discern right from wrong, and not follow them into false behavior, that Armstrong can find in this passage a basis for such rhetoric.

It’s not only “ironic,” it is absolutely untrue that I did this. In this statement I wasn’t commenting on Matthew 23 at all; I was making a general observation, in opposition to White’s tendency to absurdly superimpose sola Scriptura onto the Old Testament and the Jews. The immediate context was an indirect comment on the passage I cited two paragraphs before: Nehemiah 8 (also in the Old Testament; last time I checked). Quite odd. But this isn’t the first time that White has completely misconstrued and/or misrepresented some argument of mine, and it sure won’t be the last.

Armstrong ends his presentation with two more main points.

White skipped yet another two paragraphs from my book, but for the sake of space, I won’t cite those. I am replying at all under the assumption that this was a “point-by-point” rebuttal attempt from White (which I assumed, as it had eight parts). But alas, it is not. Why am I not surprised?

First, he draws from his own anecdotal experience as a Protestant to assert that “individual Christians” have the right and duty to rebuke their pastors for “unbiblical” teaching. I find it odd that Roman Catholics will lionize those who stood up to the corrupt Papacy in the past, and then turn around and demonize a non-Catholic who would seek biblical fidelity from his or her leaders. Be that as it may, yes, every member of Christ’s body has the duty to believe the truth, and, if there is trouble in the camp, so to speak, to bring his or her concerns to the elders (note Armstrong doesn’t seem to understand the plurality of elders polity position). He relates a bad experience he had in what sounds like a single-pastor situation, not realizing that in the biblical model the local church is not under the control of a despot, but under the direction of a group of men who fit the qualifications laid out in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. This changes the dynamic greatly, for instead of a one-on-one “power struggle” you have one of the sheep bringing a concern which may be valid, or may be based upon ignorance or misunderstanding, to a group of men, not just a single person.

This is not the time to get into a broad ecclesiological discussion (nor of the fine points of private judgment and sola Scriptura). White’s “plural elder” ecclesiology is not at all the predominant position, even among the hundreds of Protestant denominations.

White then cynically summarizes my next four-paragraph argument and dismisses it with no real argument of his own. As I am sick to death of that tactic by now, I won’t even bother quoting his remarks, since he grants me no such courtesy.

So, with all of that said (probably took me more room to review/summarize his position than he spent in the book itself!), I move to my response, and I promise to keep it as brief as possible. I could not resist the temptation to respond a bit as we were going along, but I wish to outline a response to the entire argument that should be useful to anyone encountering the use of Matthew 23 by Roman Catholic apologists. I shall do so in our next, and possibly final, installment.

Six parts to “review/summarize” a position? And now we will be blessed with a two-part “response”? I agree that the six-part soliloquy has been no “response,” but it is strange to see white himself implicitly acknowledge the same. It’s clear that White is now setting the stage for a general argument that will utterly ignore all or most of the particulars of my argument. As such, it will be worthless as a “response” because it won’t be specific enough. I’m predicting this (I haven’t read Parts VII and VIII yet). In any event, his reply-before-the-true-“response” has been pathetically weak and insubstantial, and I have no doubt that it’s final quarter-portion will continue to be so. Let’s see how accurate my prediction will be. I have to amuse myself somehow, as I continue to sit and wait for a decent argument to respond to.

I would remind readers that James White is widely considered by anti-Catholics to be one of the leading champions of their position. He has participated in many oral debates, written many books, and has a lot of material on the Internet. He also does a daily webcast. So please bear in mind that if one of the supposedly “best” anti-Catholic (which is different from merely Protestant, because it denies that Catholicism is Christian) apologists makes arguments this weak and easily-answered, what does that tell us about the strength of the position that he advocates? I think it reveals quite a bit.

*****

My reply to White’s Part VII and Part VIII:

It’s clear that (as predicted), White has no intention of actually attempting to rationally refute my response. That is especially true in Part VII, where he mostly repeats what he already wrote, or replies to someone else’s argument.

Regular readers of this blog are already well aware of the fact that in almost every instance of apologetic conflict with the various religions of men the issue comes down to either the validity and accuracy of the Bible as the Word of God, or, to the proper exegesis of the text of the Bible itself. And surely that is the case here as well.

It certainly is. White and I only disagree as to where the improper exegesis lies. After repeating a citation, White opines:

We have already pointed to the many problems with the far-reaching attempt of Armstrong to find in the introduction to the announcement of judgment upon the Pharisees its polar opposite. Rather than seeing the main point in Jesus’ words (the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees, and the judgments coming upon them), Armstrong’s commitment to Rome helps him to find the opposite: Jesus hasn’t gotten around to condemning the Pharisees yet; instead, he starts off lauding them as possessors of divine tradition passed down from Moses himself! The screeching transition into the condemnation of them is hard to imagine, but keeping this text consistent with the surrounding inspired material has never been a high priority of those who interpret via Roman decree.

I thoroughly answered this charge. White, throughout has simply assumed what he is trying to prove, with the following shallow “reasoning”:

1. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees.

2. Therefore, they are utterly evil, and nothing good can come from them.

3. Therefore, He couldn’t possibly have been granting them any authority at all; He must have meant something else.

Very briefly I wish to note that the listing of passages Armstrong provided regarding alleged “oral tradition” include some which simply refer to the passing down of historical incidents or facts, which does nothing more than prove that ancient men kept historical records just as modern men do. History does not have to be inspired to be recorded or referenced.

I agree. I wasn’t trying to prove that it always was.

Further, it seems odd to believe that supernatural knowledge could be granted to the writers of Scripture in various portions and yet, when it comes to the NT writers, they must be enslaved to merely human sources.

Yes it is odd, but who believes this?

In any case, it is a huge leap to move from “NT writers did not limit themselves to solely the Scriptures as their source of knowledge” (i.e., they knew other books had been written, they knew of history, and they knew of current events, and used these things in their teaching and exhortation) to “the biblical writers embraced the idea of extra-biblical tradition as inspired and equal to the Tanakh.”

I have given my reasons for believing that such a tradition was authoritative (not “inspired”, which is another White red herring).

As we documented many times in the initial responses to Mr. Armstrong’s book, he is unaware of what he must provide on an exegetical basis to substantiate a particular reading of any text, let alone a disputed one.

The usual charge of profound ignorance . . .

Armstrong is here presenting the simplified version of what has been presented by others, like David Palm, in a more scholarly format . . .

White then goes off on a tangent of the question of oral tradition itself, with long quotes intended originally for David Palm. As this is not the topic at hand, it is irrelevant to our current discussion. I won’t be diverted by this tactic.

These questions are just as applicable to Armstrong as they were years ago in this context.

As I said, that’s another discussion. Here the topic was supposedly Moses’ seat. We’ve seen how bankrupt White’s arguments have been. He claimed in Part VI that he was ready to issue his actual “response.” I have yet to see it, and now it’s already on to Part VIII, after marveling at White’s weakest, most irrelevant presentation yet.

But let us hurry to the real issue:

What a novel concept! Here we are at Part VIII and White is now prepared to arrive at the “real issue”. I suppose some people are slow learners. Maybe white will give us something of significant substance this time, at long last.

Armstrong wrote, “…Christians were, therefore, bound to elements of Pharisaical teaching that were not only nonscriptural, but based on oral tradition, for this is what the Pharisees believed.” Armstrong assumes no distinction between practice, interpretation, or doctrine, regarding the teaching of the Pharisees, ignoring the function of the seat of Moses in the synagogue, and assuming an entire mountain of later Roman Catholic concepts in the process.

Huh? Is this an argument? No; once again, it is a declarative statement, and largely a non sequitur. I have made my case at great length, and have now defended it at almost equally great length. At no time have I assumed “an entire mountain of later Roman Catholic concepts.” I don’t have to do that for my argument to succeed, and it would be dumb and historically anachronistic anyway. I didn’t do it, but White (with more of his patented cynical wishful thinking) thinks I did. As usual, he provides no proof of his curious charges. What else is new? If most of his “arguments” are logically circular, it shouldn’t surprise us that his accusations are also circular and incoherent.

But there is a simple, easy way of determining if Armstrong’s central assertion is true (indeed, without it, the rest of his argument is vacuous and irrelevant): are we to seriously believe that the opening words of the condemnation of the Pharisees and scribes for their hypocrisy and opposition to God’s truth are in fact commendations of the theology of the Pharisees, so that their extra-biblical traditions are to be taken as normative for Christians? Let’s test this theory.

No argument again; just a repetition of his earlier remarks. I guess this must be what White does in his oral debates: he plays to the crowds with boilerplate and non sequiturs and straw men. I could see how that would work with your average anti-Catholic, but it won’t fly with mainstream Protestants or Catholics or open-minded individuals trying to decide between the two presented positions.

And yet, in the immediately preceding chapter, the Lord Jesus had defended the truth about the resurrection (did He get this truth from the Pharisees or did the Pharisees simply believe the truth about the subject?) against the Sadducees, had He not? And how did He do so? If we are to believe Armstrong, he would do so by reference to Pharisaical tradition, since, as he said, the Old Testament is not clear enough, and besides, it is much clearer in the oral traditions, correct? Of course not!

I dealt with this false dichotomy last time. White, almost more than anyone I have ever seen, is such a prisoner of his false premises and presuppositions, that he makes some amazingly weak arguments, yet thinks they are so compelling. This is a striking example of one such “argument.”

How did Jesus respond?

Matthew 22:29-33 29 But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31 “But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: 32 ‘I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB ‘? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” 33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.

Did Jesus appeal to Pharisaic traditions? Surely not. He took His opponents directly back to the text of Scripture itself, held them accountable for the words as if God had spoken them directly to them that very day, and proved that God is the God of the living, not of the dead. And please note the reaction of the crowds: they were astonished at His teaching. This was not the first time.

Jesus appealed to Scripture in making arguments. Wow, what an astounding realization! I’m delighted that White informed me of this little-known fact. I’ll have to remember this (and so I take out my handy-dandy notebook to record the momentous tidbit of truth from White).

This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Jesus respected Pharisaical traditions or not. He did because He observed several of them. White’s reasoning is as silly as saying that, because I emphasize almost exclusively biblical argumentati0n for Catholic doctrines in my first two books, that therefore I must not accept Catholic tradition. It proves exactly nothing. The assumption would be dead wrong in my case, and it is exceedingly likely (if not certainly) just as wrong with regard to our Lord Jesus.

White continues on with this sort of utterly-irrelevant argumentation, which resolves nothing in our discussion, concluding that “He did not argue from tradition, but from the Scriptures” (as if there is an absolute separation of the two in the first place: this is yet another of White’s false, unbiblical dichotomies).

This is just the opposite of the conclusions we would draw from Armstrong’s position.

Since White adopts one side of a false dichotomy; he assumes that we Catholics must adopt the other extreme side. But of course, a false dichotomy is just that: false. We don’t accept “tradition-only” as a viable option for anything. Our position is Bible-Tradition-Church: all in harmony with each other. Sola Traditio is just as silly as sola Ecclesia, and neither is the Catholic position. But note how White vainly tries to make it so. That’s what we call a “straw man,” folks.

But most compellingly the interpretation offered by Armstrong (and others) falters with finality when we ask a simple question: even if we were to grant all the inserted ideas about the centrality of “tradition” here, the fact is that Armstrong’s interpretation goes directly against Jesus’ own teaching in Matthew 15. You just cannot make these two passages fit together.

This is the passage concerning the Corban rule, which we have already dealt with, and disposed of, as any sort of successful objection at all.

Note the text: 1) These are Pharisees, the very ones Armstrong refers us to as carrying divine traditions as those who have seated themselves in Moses’ seat. 2) The Pharisees begin with reference to one tradition (note it is behavioral in orientation, interpretive of other laws, not doctrinal or revelational) and the Lord respond by reference to a completely different tradition–but both are encompassed by the one phrase, “the tradition of the elders,” which, no matter how hard Armstrong may try, is definitional of the entire body of tradition to which he wishes to bind us via his reading of Matthew 23. 3) If Armstrong is right, the Corban rule to which Jesus refers here would be properly defined by the Pharisees and properly taught from “Moses’ seat.” Does it not follow, inexorably, that for Jesus’ followers to do as He commands in both Matthew 15 and Matthew 23 that they would have to exercise the very discernment and examination of the Pharisees’ teaching that Armstrong decries? The Corban rule was just as much a part of “oral tradition” as anything else. It was an “interpretation” of the law concerning a man’s duties to his parents as well as the laws dealing with giving to the temple and its worship. But it was a false teaching, as Jesus here makes clear. It was an allegedly divine tradition that men should have examined and rejected on the basis of their own reading of the Scriptures.

That’s right: people should reject corrupt traditions. No argument there . . . this gets back to a statement I made earlier, concerning the modern misunderstanding of Hebrew idiom of “everything” and “all.” It was not understood in the sense of having no exceptions whatsoever. That was a later, more logical, “Greek” mode of thinking. So it is entirely possible in the Hebrew mind that the Pharisees could have authority, while they might teach some things that are corrupt, and to be rejected (just as civil governments have authority, but in extreme cases, must be disobeyed, in matters of conscience). But by and large, they were authoritative. This is no contradiction; a paradox, maybe, but not another of White’s false dichotomies.

In fact, it seems plain beyond contradiction that Jesus is here teaching the Scriptures are so clear and compelling on this point in relationship to honoring one’s father and mother that there is surely no need for a magisterium to tell you this, for the “magisterium” of the day was telling you just the opposite!

Here White smuggles in his prior disposition of sola Scriptura, which doesn’t follow simply from Scripture being clear enough to clinch a particular argument. That can be, and often is, true, but it has no inherent implication that, therefore, authority does not exist, or exists only in a provisional sense. White’s general fallacy here is arguing from the particular to the general, and “throwing out the baby with the bathwater.” Just because one corrupt tradition was rebuked does not mean that Pharisaical authority was null and void. He can’t prove his case from the single case of the Corban rule. All the relevant data must be taken into consideration. But White refuses to do that because it doesn’t help his superficial “case” for the matter to be examined too closely. We mustn’t do that!

But how could Jesus say these things about the Pharisees, who had seated themselves in Moses’ seat, in Armstrong’s scenario? He couldn’t!

No??!! He can say them just like Paul rebuked Peter. If someone is being a hypocrite, or has corrupted one aspect of their teaching, they should be rebuked. White seems to have forgotten that God made an eternal covenant with David, which wasn’t broken even by murder and adultery.

But if we simply allow the context to speak, and realize Matthew 23:1-3 is not a positive statement about the Pharisee’s authority, but the beginning of their condemnation, and their having seated themselves in Moses’ seat in the synagogue only adds to their condemnation (but has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with later Roman Catholic theories of authority or tradition), then we find a consistent reading of Jesus’ words.

This is not a plausible interpretation at all, as shown in previous installments, at great length.

In Conclusion

While there is much more that could be said, we have certainly said enough. Mr. Armstrong was unwise to sub-title his book, “95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants” when he is manifestly ill equipped to provide the “goods” to back up his claims. His work is convincing only to the already convinced, but surely not to anyone who is actually familiar with what is necessary to show respect to God’s Word by handling it aright. It is truly my prayer that the time I have invested in demonstrating the lack of substance in this work will help those who are seeking to minister the gospel of grace to those who have been ensnared by Rome’s false and deceptive “gospel.”

Thank you, James, for a clear summary of your position (and derision). I will pass on my own summary, preferring to let what I have already written speak for itself. I continue to await a substantive, rational, biblically sound reply to my argument from James White.

***

[see all the other installments of this multi-part debate on my James White web page: second section]

***

Mr. White’s words will be in blue; my former words in green.

***

Reply to White’s Part IV:

I would like to expand, momentarily, on a thought with which I closed the last installment in this series. Mr. Armstrong is right to say that the text does not provide us with a direct listing of what the Pharisees did or did not teach when speaking in the synagogue. That can only be determined on the basis of other texts, if at all . . .

Good. But it’s not like we are historically ignorant; as if no source outside of the Bible can help us learn what they taught (or the subsequent history of Judaism).

(and I believe such texts as Matthew 15 do tell us a good bit about that).

We learn some things, but not nearly enough for White’s sweepingly negative, unqualified rejection of both the Pharisees and also of tradition outside the bounds of what sola Scriptura permits.

But is it truly a “gratuitous” assumption on my part, based upon sola scriptura to believe that there is no warrant here for believing that the text is relevant to an establishment of some second source of divine authority in the views of the Lord Jesus?

Yes. It’s presuppositional-type apologetics, which is not particularly compelling for anyone who does not already accept it on faith.

I firmly believe so, and once again the grounds for this is not a gratuitous assumption, but that wonderful thing called context. As I pointed out originally, these words are the introduction to a lengthy pronouncement of woe and judgment upon the scribes and Pharisees.

I dealt with the context of Matthew 23 and the Pharisees in general and their theological relationship to early Christianity in the last installment. White’s fallacy is that He sees Jesus rebuking them for hypocrisy and corruption, and incorrectly, illogically concludes that He therefore must deny that they have any authority at all. This has been the usual historic Protestant response (especially among those, who — like Baptists and even Lutherans — want to drive a big, unbiblical wedge between Law and Grace, as if they are literally antithetical). The Moses’ seat issue (as well as continued Christian observance of sacrifices and matters of the Law in one form or another) precisely shows that they still do have authority. This can be fully harmonized with Matthew 23 and the scathing denunciations, rightly-understood. No problem there . . .

But White has a huge problem squaring this other data with the notion that Jesus was absolutely rejecting both the Pharisees and Tradition outside the Bible (however one defines “Bible” at that early stage of canonization). I give more biblical evidences for my position in my book, which I will cite as necessary, in due course. White may or may not respond to those, with either a real rational reply, or just more boilerplate and standard, ultimately ineffective sola Scriptura rhetoric, which doesn’t truly take into account the nature or strength of objections. I’m answering as I read his eight-part critique, so I don’t know what he does later on in the series. I strongly suspect that he will try to avoid and evade many relevant issues, because that has always been my experience with him in the past. So I will state my predictions on that now, and the reader can see — with me — whether it comes true or not.

As we will see, Armstrong is forced, in his attempt to force Matthew 23 into his theological mold, to speak of how indebted the early Christians were to the Pharisees, and to in essence speak positively about them.

I don’t have to force it into any “mold”; I simply have to highlight, document, and follow the facts: from the Bible and history. I don’t need to force those facts into anything that they aren’t. White is the one who must do that, because the facts in this instance go against his “pet theory.” Therefore, he is the one forced (by necessity of his unproven presuppositions) to minimize any positive historical fact concerning the Pharisees, or any of their contributions to early Christian theology. He can certainly try to do this, but he won’t succeed, because the historical evidences are too compelling.

And while one may well say positive things about Pharisees in various contexts (I would argue the issue of their traditions would not be one of those contexts),

Again, he can try to argue and believe this way, but it won’t succeed, because there were plenty of these traditions that the early Christians adopted wholesale. It’s impossible to make a blanket condemnation of all their traditions. Jesus didn’t do that, so neither should Mr. White.

. . . this passage in Matthew 23 is singularly contradictory to such a discussion.

Not in the slightest, as already shown in my last reply. This is very simple logic, but White commits a rather elementary (but momentous in its results) fallacy, which is common when one is trying to defend a position in the teeth of contrary facts; the facts and logic are the first thing to go.

The fact of the matter is that Armstrong’s comments do not flow from the text at all. His position does not start with a recognition of the context of the text being examined. Instead, he clearly proceeds from the position demanded of him by Rome.

Sheer nonsense. Anyone can see that I have incorporated the context into my analysis, and it has not been a happy result for White’s position. White is far more forced by his sola Scriptura position to interpret the passage in a particular (eisegetical) way, than I am forced by “Rome.” It so happens that nothing here contradicts Catholic teaching about tradition. Plenty, however, contradicts Protestant false, unbiblical tradition of sola Scriptura.

The fact that these words must be heard in a condemnatory, not congratulatory, context, must be kept in mind. And when we do this, we see that the fact that these men sat in positions of leadership within the people of God only increases their guilt. This theme will build to a crescendo in the following verses.

This doesn’t undermine the fact that Jesus told His followers to “practice and observe whatever they tell you” (thus, they have authority), “but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice” (authority does not preclude hypocrisy and bad example; and the latter do not forbid continuing authority) — Matthew 23:1-3.

Armstrong continues:

Secondly, White’s assumption that Jesus is referring literally to Pharisees sitting on a seat in the synagogue and reading (the Old Testament only) — and that alone — is more forced and woodenly literalistic than the far more plausible interpretation that this was simply a term denoting received authority. (p. 47)

Of course, my whole point (and this is clear when the sections DA did not include are read with the citation) is that Jesus is addressing synagogue worship and the position the Pharisees have taken in that worship. The disciples (and the crowds, v. 2) would know to what He referred by the mere reference to Moses’ seat, and to the primary functions in synagogue worship of that seat. It was a position of honor to read from the Word of God, and Jesus’ admonition is to do what they tell you in that context, but not to do what they practice.

If by this, White means more than a literal sitting in the seat, then good. His phrase, “sitting on Moses’ seat” suggested to me a literal chair, and folks sitting in it. I stand corrected if I misread him. Hypocrisy is still being referred to, and that is a different issue from authority.

If Armstrong wishes to expand Moses’ seat beyond the role it had in the synagogue and include within it some kind of “received authority” including the ability to bind men to extra-scriptural traditional teachings (which is, after all, what Armstrong is driving at), . . .

The Pharisees did indeed believe in “extra-scriptural traditional teachings.” This is the whole point. There was plenty of “tradition in that tradition,” both written and oral. Thus, if these Pharisees still possessed authority, according to our Lord Jesus, then that would obviously include oral tradition as well, because that’s what they believed in their system. They weren’t bound to arbitrary, man-made rules of faith such as sola Scriptura. But we mustn’t have that! We must pretend that this authority extended only to a sola Scriptura-like, Bible-Only mentality, completely overlooking the role of tradition (particularly oral) in mainstream Pharisaical thought.

They had authority, and we know the nature of this authority. It’s a simple historical question, easily-answered. But if one doesn’t like the implications of the answer, then one starts minimizing, ignoring, dismissing things that go against one’s pet hypothesis (as White is — quite openly — doing presently). And this type of dynamic and “canned response” was exactly what my book dealt with: the processes of rationalization and evasion that occur when faced with “anomalous” biblical and historical facts. White is a classic, almost quintessential case of this process-in-progress. That’s why I cited him regarding Moses’ Seat. His current responses merely confirm what we already knew about the incoherent and forced nature of his position. For that, I heartily thank him: for being such a picture-perfect textbook example of the very thing my book was devoted to examining.

. . . some explanation must be offered for why Jesus specifically limits their authority as He does.

I see no specific limits. Where are they? White thinks he sees some. Let’s see what he can come up with:

He tells His disciples and the crowds not to do what they do. Well, what do they do? The rest of Matthew 23 tells us. In essence, they were hypocrites (v. 28).

Exactly, just like many Christians today are. For example, there are some Christians who are such hypocrites and rigid legalists that they can’t even recognize certain entire classes of other Christians, or acknowledge any good thing that other Christians (whom they define as non-Christians and in “darkness” on no legitimate grounds whatsoever) do — even when they would totally agree with that particular thing! So the worst aspects of the corruptions of the Pharisees definitely live on today, in the equally-unworthy traditions of certain backward, muddleheaded, irrationally and uncharitably judgmental, theologically-obtuse sectors of Christianity.

And what was one of the main ways they demonstrated their hypocrisy? Matthew 15:1-8 tells us: the binding of extra-biblical traditions upon men’s backs in contradiction to the Word of God.

This was one particular corruption of a tradition, that was unbiblical, or contrary to the Bible. That doesn’t prove that no legitimate tradition whatever exists: one that is not technically included in the letter of the Bible, yet in harmony with it. White would love the text to prove all that, but it clearly does not, so all he can do is engage in wishful thinking, and greatly exaggerate the implications of the text: basically read into it what he wants to see (which is both eisegesis and fallacious circular reasoning). The text itself cannot at all hold all the weight which White is attaching to it. And other clear biblical texts (many of which I’ve already noted) contradict White’s interpretation of this one.

So, if Jesus told His disciples and the crowds that they should not “do according to their deeds,” is He not telling them that they must examine those deeds by some standard and judge them to be wanting?

Yes. If one particular tradition of theirs contradicts the Bible, then it is a false tradition, and people ought not to be bound to it. That is, if they commit the hypocrisy of not making sure their actions are in harmony with the Law, rightly-understood in the light of the Bible, then they should not be imitated in that respect. We have no disagreement insofar as that goes.

And what is that standard? The answer is clear.

It sure is: the Bible and received, correct tradition, which is consistent with that Bible.

That is why I said Jesus was not telling the crowds to quit the synagogue or begin a revolution by throwing the Pharisees out, but He was freeing them from the ungodly control the Pharisees had over the “am ha’aretz,” the “people of the land,” who were told by the Pharisees that unless they acted and lived like them, they would never have the grace of God.

We mustn’t imitate sinners. I couldn’t agree more.

No, Jesus says, for they are hypocrites, and He is about to pronounce an entire series of woes upon them.

Indeed; yet he doesn’t take away their authority. As that is the subject at hand (is there an authority not technically, strictly confined to the words of the Bible?) , most of the above argumentation of Mr. White is a non sequitur, and much ado about nothing, accomplishing nothing. As we (hopefully) get into more specifics and substantiation for each of our views, that will become all the more clear. But you must give White credit for trying so hard to support a position which is so impossible to uphold, based on the biblical record. You know: give him an E for effort . . . it’s very tough to “prove” something that is untrue. It takes a lot more work, and is incomparably more frustrating. I’m having a wonderful time, though, because truth is a joy to discover and present (as well as much easier), and I can simply follow the biblical and historical evidence where it leads. Praise God!

*****

Reply to White’s Part V:

At this point Armstrong opines,

It reminds me of the old silly Protestant tale that the popes speak infallibly and ex cathedra (cathedra is the Greek word for seat in Matthew 23:2) only when sitting in a certain chair in the Vatican – because the phrase means literally “from the bishop’s chair” — whereas it was a figurative and idiomatic usage). (sic) (pp. 47-48)

Of course, I have never made such a statement, . . .

I never stated that he did; but only that his sort of reasoning here reminded me of that particular instance of mistaken Protestant reasoning. They misunderstood ex cathedra to be referring always to a literal chair (rather than to authority). White is doing roughly the same thing, by limiting the usage in Matthew 23 to the synagogues. Thus, my analogy was quite apt.

. . . but the fact remains that in the context of the condemnation of the Pharisees in Matthew 23, the identity of “Moses’ seat” and its function in synagogue worship is central.

White (as we have seen so often) simply assumes his interpretation, and proceeds onward, without seeming to realize that he needs to establish the validity of his premises first. He can’t just assume that Moses’ seat refers strictly to the literal seat in the synagogues, from which the Pharisees taught. In my book, shortly after this, I cited both The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary and The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, in favor of my position as to what the term meant. Without proper definitions, discussions go nowhere. So White is off on his tangent of restricting the term to synagogue teaching, and is off-base, because his definition is faulty to begin with. But perhaps White would claim that those two works know not the slightest thing about biblical exegesis, either (as he habitually claims about me).

If one allows the function of Moses’ seat to be removed from the discussion (as Armstrong does), you lose the connection with the condemnation of the Pharisees: the reason they are hypocrites is because they should know better: they read from the Scriptures on a regular basis, and then turn around and do away with that teaching by their traditions, and those traditions result in actions that are contrary to the Word.

A particular function in a synagogue is not required for the condemnations of Jesus to make sense. They need not read the Scripture in a synagogue to know what it teaches. We agree that their traditions in some (or many) cases ran contrary to Scripture. But they don’t have to read in the synagogue for that to be the case. Nor do they have to not accept extra-biblical tradition for it to be the case. And White still is neglecting to see that Jesus told people to obey their teachings. These teachings included extra-biblical tradition, because the Pharisees believed in oral tradition, received by Moses at the same time he received the Ten Commandments. He can’t overcome this, no matter how hard he tries.

This is why you do as they say in the context of the synagogue worship, but you do not do what they do.

This is eisegesis (reading into the text), in my opinion, relying upon the already highly-questionable definition of Moses’ seat that White has been utilizing. No such qualification is in the text itself, restricting it to synagogue worship. So White has a bad definition, and desperate exegesis, to shore up an already abysmally-weak position.

Since we know Christ held men accountable to have known the Corban rule was contrary to God’s Word, and the Pharisees taught this, even claiming it came from Moses, then clearly we must allow the limitation of the function of Moses’ seat to stand. And this Armstrong will not allow.

It’s not up to me to “allow” or disallow. I’m only going by the definition of the term that the scholars who have properly studied such things have given me. We can’t redefine terms whatever way we like them, like a wax nose.

He misconstrues the proper recognition of the synagogue context of Moses’ seat, and hence the limitation of its purview, with a woodenly literalistic idea about whether one is standing or sitting. He writes,

Jesus says that they sat “on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you.” In other words, because they had the authority, based on the position of occupying Moses’ seat, they were to be obeyed. It is like referring to a chairman of a company or committee. He occupies the “chair”; therefore he has authority. No one thinks he has the authority only when he sits in a certain chair reading the corporation charter or the Constitution or some other official document. (p. 48)

Notice the importance of this to Armstrong’s argument: he must create an authority that resides in the Pharisees separate from their place in the worship of God’s people in the synagogue. So, instead of the biblical limitation of their authority to the role they have taken in the synagogue, Armstrong speaks of the Pharisees (who are about to be condemned roundly) as having an inherent authority, and hence they are to be obeyed. Yet in Matthew 23, what is to be obeyed is not an inherent authority in the scribes and Pharisees, but, as the “therefore” of v. 3 shows us, the reason for obedience is the seat of Moses, not an authority separate from it. But having missed this distinction, Armstrong continues, “Yet this is how White would exclusively interpret Jesus’ words.” No, White would not force Jesus into internal contradiction, ignore the fact that He holds His disciples and the crowd accountable for exercising judgment on the deeds of the Pharisees (even those deeds they based upon “tradition”), and rip this section out of its role as the introduction not to the lauding of the scribes and Pharisees, but their condemnation.

This is just more building of a house of cards on top of the fallacies already listed. Catholic apologist “Matt1618” — responding to Protestant apologist Ron Rhodes — (Reasoning From the Scriptures with Ron Rhodes), illustrates the weakness of such a position:

His words are practice and observe whatever they tell you. How can Rhodes say that this is not authoritative? . . . Here Jesus legitimizes this tradition. Yes, he later castigates the Pharisees because they don’t practice what they preach. But he binded them to whatever they told them. Thus, it is an authoritative statement that binds people to obey them, even if they can be hypocrites. ’Whatever’, makes it another authoritative source that followers must obey.

Rhodes even tried to use the Corban rule of Matthew 15, just as White did, but (also like White) inconsistently, as “Matt1618” notes:

I see the double standard of Rhodes. In the earlier chapter when he mentioned Matthew 15 to say that tradition had no binding authority, he did not balance that by mentioning Matthew 23 at all, when Jesus said that whatever they tell you to do from Moses’ seat, you obey them. Now, when Jesus legitimizes that authority, he mentions Matthew 15. If he was going to use Matthew 15 to help give insight to Matthew 23, he should have given us Matthew 23 to give insight to Matthew 15. But Rhodes does not do that. Of course, what Jesus condemned is non-legitimate traditions, that caused people to disobey commandments in Matthew 15. That was an illegitimate tradition. However, in Matthew 23 he recognized the binding authority of another tradition. Apparently, Jesus as God accepted a tradition that was binding on believers as noted in this passage.

. . . the Pharisees cannot trace themselves back to Moses. However, there is authority recognized by the Jewish tradition that had passed on this authority to the Pharisees and scribes. We also see that this Moses’ seat referred to the right to interpret the Mosaic law. Jesus validated that right, independent of Scripture. The acceptance of succession is also noted. The Pharisees are seen as legal successors. This gives precedence for succession of the apostles. By the way, Jews had no concept of Sola Scriptura.

“Matt 1618” then cites two Protestant statements on Moses’ seat, from fellow Catholic apologist Steve Ray’s copious research:

Sitting on ‘Moses seat’ referred to a place of dignity and the right to interpret the Mosaic law. The scribes were the successors and the heirs of Moses’ authority and were rightfully looked to for pronouncements upon his teaching . . . Jesus does not appear to challenge this right”. Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Walter A. Elwell [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1988], 2:1498, as quoted in Stephen Ray, Upon This Rock, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999], p. 47, fn. 62.

DA Carson writes “Moreover, ‘to sit on X’s seat’ often means to succeed X” (Exod 11:5;12:29; 1 Kings 1:35, 46; 2:12; 16:11;2 Kings 15:12; Ps. 132:12; crf. Jos Antiq. VII, 353 [xiv.5] XVIII, 2 [i.1]. This would imply that the ‘teachers of the law’ are Moses’ legal successors, possessing all his authority – a view the scribes themselves held…Panta hosa (‘everything’) is a strong expression and cannot be limited to ‘that teaching of the law that is in Jesus’ view a faithful interpretation of it’; they cover everything the leaders teach, including the oral tradition as well’ Gaeberlein, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 8:472), as quoted in Stephen Ray, ibid., p. 47 fn. 62.

Steve Ray added, right after this:

Carson later dismisses the whole passage by relegating it to irony, which even James White rejects. (p. 47, footnote 62)

New Testament exegete Floyd V. Filson concurs with the same general understanding of Moses’ seat:

The scribes, mostly Pharisees, copied, taught, and applied the Mosaic Law. They were pledged to obey and teach both the written law and the oral tradition, which they claimed was an integral part of the Law, received through a direct succession of teachers going back to Moses . . . Moses’ seat [was a] synagogue chair which symbolized the origin and authority of their teaching. Jesus does not challenge their claim; he seems here to approve it. (A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, New York: Harper & Row, 1960, 243; emphasis my own)

But continuing with his misunderstanding he cites from the Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary, likewise seemingly not understanding that the definition offered is not at all contrary to what I have written.

That’s not true. It referred to a general judicial authority. Here is the citation (which White curiously omitted, seeing that he made a big deal out of my not citing all of his words). Readers can decide for themselves what it entails:

References to seating in the Bible are almost all to such as a representation of honor and authority . . .

According to Jesus, the scribes and Pharisees occupy “Moses’ seat” (Matt. 23:2), having the authority and ability to interpret the law of Moses correctly; here “seat” is both a metaphor for judicial authority and also a reference to a literal stone seat in the front of many synagogues that would be occupied by an authoritative teacher of the law.

(p. 48 of my book; Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, edited by Allen C. Myers, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1987; English revision of Bijbelse Encyclopedie, edited by W. H. Gispen, Kampen, Netherlands: J. H. Kok, revised edition, 1975; translated by Raymond C. Togtman and Ralph W. Vunderink, 919-920)

The ISBE is likewise noted, and its definition, “It is used also of the exalted position occupied by men of marked rank or influence, either in good or evil.” Of course, in this case, it is in reference to evil men, as the rest of Matthew 23 demonstrates. Armstrong continues,

White makes no mention of these considerations, but it is difficult to believe that he is not aware of them (since he is a Bible scholar well acquainted with the nuances of biblical meanings). They do not fit in very well with the case he is trying to make, so he omits them. But the reader is thereby left with an incomplete picture. (p. 49)

Actually, it is Armstrong who has the incomplete understanding of my own position, as has been demonstrated. On that basis he, seemingly, accuses me of purposefully omitting these “considerations” so as to strengthen my case, or worse, deceive my readers.

I’m only pointing out that one’s bias can lead one to many strange tactics, in order to avoid a conclusion that one doesn’t want to accept. I’ve never made an accusation of deliberate deception with regard to White (or almost any other theological opponent, for that matter), but White had no scruples about accusing me of that very thing in the earlier dialogue we engaged in concerning my book. I guess this is a bit of projection, which is misplaced, to put it mildly.

In the next section Armstrong comes out fully with his insistence that Jesus was here binding Christians to the oral traditions of the Pharisees, and this will certainly provide the fullest basis for the complete rejection and refutation of his reading of Matthew 23.

Not all oral traditions; only those which are consistent with the Bible. In other words, I was trying to demonstrate that such traditions exist, that they are positively mentioned in the Bible, and practiced by Jesus and the apostles, and that, therefore, sola Scriptura is contradicted.

But I wish to pursue White’s argument that the Pharisees’ authority was strictly confined to the synagogues. For example, we have the incident of St. Paul and the high priest. High priests (or any priests) had little directly to do with the synagogue, by definition, because they offered sacrifice, and that was done at the Temple. Yet they had authority. In this case, Ananias, the high priest, was a Sadducee, and, according to ISBE, a scoundrel: “lawless and violent . . . haughty, unscrupulous, filling his sacred office for purely selfish and political ends” (vol. 1, p. 129). But Paul thought he had authority. Here is what I wrote in my book, on page 50:

Paul shows the high priest, Ananias, respect, even when the latter had him struck on the mouth, and was not dealing with matters strictly of the Old Testament and the Law, but with the question of whether Paul was teaching wrongly and should be stopped (Acts 23:1-5). A few verses later Paul states, “I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees” (23:6) and it is noted that the Pharisees and Sadducees in the assembly were divided and that the Sadducees “say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge them all” (23:7-8). Some Pharisees defended Paul (23:9).

So here is a case of the high priest, who sacrifices at the Temple, being granted authority by the Apostle Paul. So much for White’s argument that Jesus granted authority only to Pharisees in synagogues who read the Bible in services, in Moses’ seat. Secondly, he was a scoundrel, which disposes of White’s continual reiteration that Jesus strictly limited Pharisaical authority, because some of them were bad men, and because He sternly rebuked them for hypocrisy. Thirdly, the Sadducees were on a lower theological plane than the Pharisees, and adopted “liberal” or dissenting views on may doctrines which Pharisees and Christians alike accepted, as noted above. But Paul still thinks they have authority! Fourth, Paul had rebuked this man (for having him struck) in much the same terms that Jesus had rebuked the authorities:

Acts 23:3 God shall strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?”

After he was informed that it was the high priest (23:4), Paul (for some odd reason) quickly changed his tune:

Acts 23:5 I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, “You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.”

A what???!!! I thought these people had no authority other than to sit and read the Bible publicly??? Obviously, being a “ruler” of a people entails more than that. So the analogy to Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees is very close. And this time it has nothing whatsoever to do with synagogues, and the person is in an even higher position of authority than the Pharisees (in fact, he was the president of the Sanhedrin when Paul appeared before it).

Shortly afterwards, “some of the scribes of the Pharisees’ party” defended Paul:

Acts 23:9 We find nothing wrong in this man. What if a spirit or an angel spoke to him?

Now how can all this be squared with White’s scenario? I dare say that it cannot be. Likewise, his commentary on Jesus’ statements about Moses’ seat is based on a woefully inadequate understanding of the power that the Pharisees yielded, and on related passages such as this one.

As to the general nature of Pharisaic authority, character, and Jesus’ relationship to them, the Internet article, “Who Were the Pharisees and the Sadducees?”, by Bryan T. Huie, is a storehouse of useful, fascinating information. Pharisaical teaching in synagogues included the oral law:

They followed ancient traditions inspired by an obscure text in Deuteronomy, “put it in their mouths”, that God had given Moses, in addition to the written Law, an Oral Law, by which learned elders could interpret and supplement the sacred commands. The practice of the Oral Law made it possible for the Mosaic code to be adapted to changing conditions and administered in a realistic manner.

By contrast, the Temple priests, dominated by the Sadducees . . . insisted that the law must be written and unchanged. . . . they would not admit that oral teaching could subject the Law to a process of creative development. (Paul Johnson, A History Of The Jews, New York: Harper & Row, 1987, 106)

Dr. Brad Young, a professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, writes of the oral law:

The Oral Torah clarified obscure points in the written Torah, thus enabling the people to satisfy its requirements. If the Scriptures prohibit work on the Sabbath, one must interpret and define the meaning of work in order to fulfill the divine will. Why is there a need for an oral law? The answer is quite simple: Because we have a written one. The written record of the Bible should be interpreted properly by the Oral Torah in order to give it fresh life and meaning in daily practice. . . . Moreover, it should be remembered that the Oral Torah was not a rigid legalistic code dominated by one single interpretation. The oral tradition allowed a certain amount of latitude and flexibility. In fact, the open forum of the Oral Torah invited vigorous debate and even encouraged diversity of thought and imaginative creativity. Clearly, some legal authorities were more strict than others, but all recognized that the Sabbath had to be observed. (Jesus the Jewish Theologian, 105)

And he states, concerning Jesus’ view of the Pharisees:

Many scholars and Bible students fail to understand the essence of Jesus’ controversial ministry. Jesus’ conflict with his contemporaries was not so much over the doctrines of the Pharisees, with which he was for the most part in agreement, but primarily over the understanding of his mission. He did sharply criticize hypocrites . . .

A Pharisee in the mind of the people of the period was far different from popular conceptions of a Pharisee in modern times . . . The image of the Pharisee in early Jewish thought was not primarily one of self-righteous hypocrisy . . . The Pharisee represents piety and holiness. . . . The very mention of a Pharisee evoked an image of righteousness . . .

While Jesus disdained the hypocrisy of some Pharisees, he never attacked the religious and spiritual teachings of Pharisaism. In fact, the sharpest criticisms of the Pharisees in Matthew are introduced by an unmistakable affirmation, “The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice” (Matt. 23:2-3). The issue at hand is one of practice. The content of the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees was not a problem . . . The rabbis offered nearly identical criticisms against those who teach but do not practice . . . Unfortunately, the image of the Pharisee in modern usage is seldom if ever positive. Such a negative characterization of Pharisaism distorts our view of Judaism and the beginnings of Christianity . . . The theology of Jesus is Jewish and is built firmly upon the foundations of Pharisaic thought . . . (Ibid., 100, 184, 187, 188)

John D. Keyser writes:

As a result of the harsh portrayal in the New Testament of these teachers of Jewish law, the very name Pharisee has become synonymous with hypocrisy and self-righteousness.” He goes on to say that many modern scholars “have failed to realize that the Pharisaic religion was divided into two separate schools — the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel. The group that Christ continually took to task in the New Testament was apparently the School of Shammai — a faction that was very rigid and unforgiving in their outlook.” (“Dead Sea Scrolls Prove Pharisees Controlled Temple Ritual!”, p. 1)

Huie adds:

Although Pharisees were frequently the adversaries of Christ, it should also be noted that not all their interactions were hostile. Pharisees asked him to dine with them on occasion (Luke 7:36; 11:37; 14:1), and he was warned of danger by some Pharisees (Luke 13:31). Additionally, it appears that some of the Pharisees (including Nicodemus) believed in him, although they did so secretly because of the animosity of their leaders toward Christ . . . the New Testament records that there were Pharisaic Christians in the early Church. Acts 15:5 shows some of the Pharisees who had accepted Christ as the Messiah voicing their opinion on the circumcision question. Some commentators believe that the zealous Jews mentioned in Acts 21:20 were actually Christian Pharisees. And Pharisaic scribes on the Sanhedrin council stood up for the apostle Paul when he was brought before them in 58 A.D. (Acts 23:9) . . . In Acts 23:6, Paul publicly declared, “I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee” (Acts 23:6). It is very telling that more than twenty years after his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus, Paul still claims to be a Pharisee. This alone should be proof that, on a basic level, Pharisaism and Christianity did not conflict . . . In Philippians 3:5, Paul states that he was “concerning the law, a Pharisee.” In verse 6, he goes on to say that he was “concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.”

In presenting St. Paul’s speech before the Sanhedrin, Luke depicts:

. . . Christianity and Pharisaism as natural allies, hence the direct continuity between the Pharisaic branch of Judaism and Christianity. The link is expressed directly in Paul’s own testimony: he is (now) a Pharisee, with a Pharisaic heritage (23:6). His Pharisaic loyalty is a present commitment, not a recently jettisoned stage of his religious past (cf. Phil 3:5-9). His Christian proclamation of a risen Lord, and by implication, of a risen humanity (Acts 23:6), represents a particular, but defensible, form of Pharisaic theology.” (Harper’s Bible Commentary, 1111)

The Dictionary of Paul and His Letters adds more fascinating information about Paul, Pharisaism, and the oral law:

As a further cause for boasting in Philippians, Paul claims to be a Pharisee. Here the term was defined with precision. The expression ‘as to the Law a Pharisee’ refers to the oral Law. . . . Paul thereby understood himself as a member of the scholarly class who taught the twofold Law. By saying that the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat (Mt 23:2), Jesus was indicating they were authoritative teachers of the Law. . . . In summary, Paul was saying that he was a Hebrew-speaking interpreter and teacher of the oral and written Law. (“Jew, Paul the”, 504)

Historian Paul Johnson concludes similarly concerning Jesus’ closeness in doctrine to the Pharisees:

He was closer to the Pharisees than to any other group . . . Jesus openly criticized the Pharisees, especially for ‘hypocrisy’. But on close examination, Jesus’ condemnation is by no means so severe or so inclusive as the Gospel narrative in which it is enclosed implies; and in essence it is similar to criticisms leveled at the Pharisees by the Essenes, and by the later rabbinical sages, who drew a sharp distinction between the Hakamim, whom they saw as their forerunners, and the ‘false Pharisees’, whom they regarded as enemies of true Judaism.(Ibid., 126)

Jewish historian Abba Eban states largely the same thing, from his religious perspective:

Jesus was a Pharisaic Jew . . . He meticulously kept Jewish laws, made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem on Passover, ate unleavened bread, and uttered a blessing when he drank wine. He was a Jew in word and deed.

. . . He himself declared in the Sermon on the Mount that he “had not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it.” Nourished by the ideas of Pharisaic Judaism, he stressed the Messianic hope . . .

Early Christianity is closer to Judaism than the adherents of either religion have usually wished to admit. Both Christian theologians and Orthodox Jews have underestimated the original Judeo-Christian affinity. It was only gradually that Christianity severed its connection to the Jewish community and became transformed into a gentile religion. (My People: The Story of the Jews, New York: Behrman House, Inc. / Random House, 1968, 104-106)

*****

***

[see all the other installments of this multi-part debate on my James White web page: second section]

***

Mr. White’s words will be in blue; my former words in green.

***

I am now replying to White’s Part III.

We continue reviewing Dave Armstrong’s comments on Matthew 23. He continues with a citation from my book, The Roman Catholic Controversy, p. 101, on p. 47 of The Catholic Verses. However, he does not provide some key elements of the material he is citing, so I will provide the paragraph, but will bold what was skipped, or not included, in the citation:

This appears to be the tired old charge of citing out of context. Not every instance of partial citation is incorrect or out-of-context citation. But it is one of the oldest rhetorical tricks in the book. Let’s see if White can make a positive case that I have misrepresented him at all or neglected “key elements” in his presentation. It is all the more comic and ironic, that a man who habitually ignores his opponents’ arguments and skips over huge amounts of the others’ words to rush to what he wishes to express (the present exchange is no exception to that rule), would nitpick about someone not citing absolutely every one of his words. Here is his citation, as he wishes it to be:

Indeed, the Lord’s unwillingness to become an “ecclesiastical rebel” is in perfect harmony with the Scriptural teaching on the subject of authority in the church. There was nothing in the tradition of having someone read from the Scriptures while sitting on Moses’ seat that was in conflict with the Scriptures, and hence, unlike the corban rule which we saw earlier in Matthew 15, Jesus does not reject this traditional aspect of Jewish synagogue worship. He does not insist upon anarchy in worship in the synagogue anymore than His apostle Paul would allow for it in the worship of the church at Corinth. It is quite proper to listen to and obey the words of the one who reads from the Law or the Prophets, for one is not hearing a man speaking in such a situation, but is listening to the very words of God.

Now, it is a measure of Armstrong’s understanding of the issues involved in exegesis that he responds in these words:

This is true as far as it goes, but it is essentially a non sequitur and amounts to a “reading into,” or eisegesis of the passage (which is ironic, because now White plays the role of “a man speaking” and distorting “the very words of God”).

And he is merely assuming what he is trying to prove, which is no logical argument; it’s a fallacy.

He then repeats the text, as if this somehow proves his point.

The point was that the text was more general than white’s arbitrary restriction of it, in order to conform to the arbitrary and unbiblical notion of sola Scriptura, and the rejection of Tradition as understood by the Church throughout the centuries.

Now I am going to try to read Armstrong’s work in the most positive light and assume that the next few pages, as they have paragraphs starting with “first” and “second” and so on, are his attempt to substantiate the assertion that my words are reading into the text something that is not there.

How thoughtful of him . . . imagine the novelty of granting one’s opponent the courtesy of acknowledging that he means what he obviously means.

Of course, to do this, he will have to do something more than just assume his own reading is exegetically sound. He will have to provide solid, positive argumentation.

That’s right, and this works both ways, doesn’t it?

Let’s see how well he fares. His first paragraph reads:

First, it should be noted that nowhere in the actual text is the notion that the Pharisees are only reading the Old Testament Scripture when sitting on Moses’ seat. It is an assumption gratuitously smuggled in from a presupposed position of sola Scriptura.

Quite true, but does it not likewise follow that it is a gratuitous assumption that Jesus is actually telling His disciples to embrace extra-biblical traditions that parallel Rome’s—an assumption smuggled in from a presupposed position of sola ecclesia?

First of all, “sola ecclesia” is a false description of the Catholic system of authority. This is not a Catholic term (whereas sola Scriptura is the Protestant;’s own terminology for his principle). We don’t believe in “Church alone.” We believe in the “three-legged stool” of Bible, Church, and Tradition, which is quite a different concept indeed. But White seems to think that he succeeds in rational argument by caricaturing opposing positions. The implicit reasoning seems to be: “if you don’t accept Bible Alone, you must believe in Church alone,” as if there are not other possible positions besides this stark contrast: one extreme to another.

Secondly, I agree that everyone has presuppositions that they bring to the table. But the presuppositions have to be tested to see if they can stand up, and if they are harmonious with biblical teaching. Whether “extra-biblical traditions” are involved remains to be proven; that’s what our discussion is largely about. White’s task, however, in line with his own beliefs, is to prove that they are definitely not involved, and he can’t do that by simply assuming without argument his system of sola Scriptura, which rules out such an eventuality beforehand. Thus far, he has given no one any reason to believe that such traditions are absolutely absent in the New Testament accounts under consideration.

Thirdly, it should be noted that in my book, I am critiquing White’s attempt to deny that extra-biblical Tradition could possibly be in play in these passages. All I have to do is cast doubt on his “proofs” along these lines, and show that they are not adequate to their task. Technically (i.e., logically), I don’t even have to prove that such traditions are there, in order to refute his argument, because his reasoning is somewhat similar to the following scenario:

1. James says he can prove that there are no children in the schoolyard from 2 to 3 PM.
2. His proof is that the school allows children there only from 12 to 1 PM.
3. Therefore, no children are there from 2 to 3.

Does this prove that no children are there from 2 to 3? Of course not. All it proves (assuming the documented truthfulness of #2) is that if children are there from 2 to 3, that it is against school rules. It doesn’t prove that no children are there, because it has simply assumed what it is trying to prove, by appeal to a rule which may or may not be broken in fact or actuality. It doesn’t rest upon actual observation of the schoolyard. Likewise, a critic of the argument does not have to prove that a child was actually there from 2 to 3, to disprove the above argument, because it is fallacious of its own accord.

The analogy to the present case are as follows:

children = extra-biblical traditions
schoolyard = Christianity
school rules concerning what is permitted = sola Scriptura
conclusion (#3) = presupposed, unproven, axiomatic, dogmatic assertions of Protestantism with regard to what is permitted and not permitted in Christianity

All this being the case, both sides have to strive to make a plausible biblical case for their own position. Since the Bible is the authority both sides agree upon, it is the “field” where the argument can succeed, using the agree-upon standard of Divine Revelation.

Remember, the Corban rule of Matthew 15, which Jesus specifically rejected on the basis of Scripture, was one of the Pharisees’ favorite “Mosaic traditions,” claiming divine authority. Was Jesus contradicting Himself? Surely not. And so the point clearly is, what understanding of the text is consistent with Jesus’ own practices when faced with such things as the Corban rule elsewhere?

This doesn’t prove White’s contentions of “no extra-biblical traditions” at all, because to prove that Jesus opposed one tradition doesn’t say anything at all about whether He opposed all such traditions. He Himself made this distinction clear in Mark 7:3-9. St. Paul also makes it abundantly clear that there is a legitimate tradition and a false tradition of men. So White can’t simply assume that the “approved” category of tradition is nonexistent. This is exceedingly weak reasoning; in fact, it proves nothing whatsoever.

Secondly, the specific example of the Corban rule (Matthew 15:5) is actually simply another proof that Jesus did not reject all tradition (which is the issue at hand), and this is quite simple to demonstrate. He was rebuking this particular Pharisaical tradition as a corruption of the larger tradition of proper sacrifice, which He did not abrogate at all; quite the contrary: He continued to participate in the old sacrificial system. Thus, The New Bible Dictionary (edited by J. D. Douglass, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1962) states:

The Old Testament sacrifices . . . were still being offered during practically the whole period of the composition of the New . . . Important maxims are t be found in Mt. 5:23-24, 12:3-5 and parallels 17:24-27, 23:16-20; 1 Cor. 9:13-14. it is noteworthy that our Lord has sacrifice offered for Him or offers it Himself at His presentation in the Temple, at His last Passover, and presumably on those other occasions when He went up to Jerusalem for the feasts. The practice of the apostles in Acts removes all ground from the opinion that after the sacrifice of Christ the worship of the Jewish Temple is to be regarded as an abomination to God. We find them frequenting the Temple, and Paul himself goes up to Jerusalem for Pentecost, and on that occasion offers the sacrifices (which included sin-offerings) for the interruption of vows (Acts 21; cf. Nu. 6:10-12). (p. 1122 in article, “Sacrifice and Offering”)

I thought the reader might appreciate a little balance being gained as to whether Jesus opposed all tradition. White wants to mention only the times where Jesus rejected one particular tradition. It’s important to get the whole New Testament picture and not just one small part of it, ignoring the rest.

Is it Armstrong’s, or that which sees this as the beginning of the condemnation of the Pharisees that takes up the rest of Matthew 23, and hence is actually restricting the authority of the Pharisees?

Matthew 23 is not necessarily about “restricting the authority of the Pharisees” at all. It is about Pharisaical hypocrisy, as anyone who knows the passage at all, is well aware, and also about their legalistic corruptions of the legitimate Mosaic Law (which is what Jesus found hypocritical). But condemning hypocrisy and corruption is not the same as condemning the thing that they are being hypocritical about and distorting.

The fact remains (and it is obvious in the New Testament) that much of the Pharisaical tradition was retained by Christianity (as sanctioned by our Lord Jesus and St. Paul). I wrote about this in my second published book: More Biblical Evidence for Catholicism:

PHARISEES, SADDUCEES AND THE NATURE OF TRUE JEWISH TRADITION

Many people do not realize that Christianity was derived in many ways from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism. It was really the only viable option in the Judaism of that era. Since Jesus often excoriated the Pharisees for hypocrisy and excessive legalism, some assume that He was condemning the whole ball of wax. But this is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Likewise, the Apostle Paul, when referring to his Pharisaical background doesn’t condemn Pharisaism per se.

The Sadducees, on the other hand, were much more “heretical.” They rejected the future resurrection and the soul, the afterlife, rewards and retribution, demons and angels, and predestinarianism. Christian Pharisees are referred to in Acts 15:5 and Philippians 3:5, but never Christian Sadducees. The Sadducees’ following was found mainly in the upper classes, and was almost non-existent among the common people.

The Sadducees also rejected all ‘oral Torah,’ — the traditional interpretation of the written that was of central importance in rabbinic Judaism. So we can summarize as follows:

a) The Sadducees were obviously the elitist “liberals” and “heterodox” amongst the Jews of their time.

b) But the Sadducees were also the sola Scripturists of their time.

c) Christianity adopted wholesale the very “postbiblical” doctrines which the Sadducees rejected and which the Pharisees accepted: resurrection, belief in angels and spirits, the soul, the afterlife, eternal reward or damnation, and the belief in angels and demons.
d) But these doctrines were notable for their marked development after the biblical Old Testament Canon was complete, especially in Jewish apocalyptic literature, part of Jewish codified oral tradition.

e) We’ve seen how — if a choice is to be made — both Jesus and Paul were squarely in the “Pharisaical camp,” over against the Sadducees.

f) We also saw earlier how Jesus and the New Testament writers cite approvingly many tenets of Jewish oral (later talmudic and rabbinic) tradition, according to the Pharisaic outlook.

Ergo) The above facts constitute one more “nail in the coffin” of the theory that either the Old Testament Jews or the early Church were guided by the principle of sola Scriptura. The only party which believed thusly were the Sadducees, who were heterodox according to traditional Judaism, despised by the common people, and restricted to the privileged classes only.

The Pharisees (despite their corruptions and excesses) were the mainstream, and the early Church adopted their outlook with regard to eschatology, anthropology, and angelology, and the necessity and benefit of binding oral tradition and ongoing ecclesiastical authority for the purpose (especially) of interpreting Holy Scripture.

I have more material along these lines, included in my article, Rabbinic Credentials of Jesus and St. Paul:

Jesus Himself followed the Pharisaical tradition, as argued by Asher Finkel in his book The Pharisees and the Teacher of Nazareth (Cologne: E. J. Brill, 1964). He adopted the Pharisaical stand on controversial issues (Matthew 5:18-19, Luke 16:17), accepted the oral tradition of the academies, observed the proper mealtime procedures (Mark 6:56, Matthew 14:36) and the Sabbath, and priestly regulations (Matthew 8:4, Mark 1:44, Luke 5:4). This author argues that Jesus’condemnations were directed towards the Pharisees of the school of Shammai, whereas Jesus was closer to the school of Hillel.

The Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem: 1971) backs up this contention, in its entry “Jesus” (v. 10, 10):

In general, Jesus’ polemical sayings against the Pharisees were far meeker than the Essene attacks and not sharper than similar utterances in the talmudic sources.

This source contends that Jesus’ beliefs and way of life were closer to the Pharisees than to the Essenes, though He was similar to them in many respects also(poverty, humility, purity of heart, simplicity, etc.).

The answer is clear. If Armstrong is going to claim an exegetical basis for Rome’s position, he cannot simply assume it. So far, that is all he is doing.

I provided more than enough of that, in my (admittedly biased) opinion, to cast significant doubt on White’s argument, in the book. Even if I didn’t provide sufficient exegetical argument in the book, I certainly have added much biblical cross-referencing and relevant data in this paper (far more than White’s brief, passing references, such as to the Corban rule), which White would have to deal with, if he thinks his argument can withstand the scrutiny of proper examination. But it is almost a certainty that this dialogue will never get to the stage of a second round, judging by virtually all past experience with White for ten years. As soon as the discussion gets really interesting and biblical and logical, he is no longer interested, and either flees altogether or becomes insulting. I don’t blame him, since he has such a weak and insubstantial case, in the present instance.

In any event, I submit that I have provided far more biblical support for my position than White has for his, at least as far as we have gotten. Perhaps he’ll produce a “golden bullet” in subsequent installments. I keep waiting for at least an attempt, but it never comes . . .

***

[see all the other installments of this multi-part debate on my James White web page: second section]

***

Mr. White’s words will be in blue; my former words in green.

***

In the previous installment of this series I provided an introduction and the comments I made in The Roman Catholic Controversy regarding the use of Matthew 23:1-3 by Roman Catholic apologists. Let’s make sure we understand what is required of the Roman Catholic apologist in order to substantiate their claims. First, there needs to be an identifiable oral tradition regarding “Moses’ Seat” that is passed down outside of Scripture. This tradition must grant to the scribes and Pharisees some kind of authority that is not given in Scripture itself,

It’s not necessary that it is not in Scripture; only that it is in harmony with Scripture, and something alongside it, which is not opposed to it, and is, to the contrary, sanctioned by it.

and Jesus must be making reference to this tradition, and the resultant authority, and binding His followers thereto. Is that what is going on in Matthew 23?

Something very un-Protestant is “going on” here! I believe that at the very least it is a difficulty, or difficult to explain, within a Protestant position.

Let’s see if Dave Armstrong can provide a positive defense or, will he do what most of the rest of his compatriots do: hope that an attack upon the text will be sufficient to confuse their followers into thinking they have actually provided a meaningful defense of their claims.

Interesting cynical touch . . . Yes, I and “most of the rest of” my “compatriots” sit around at night dreaming up fanciful ways that we can “attack” the biblical text, so as to confuse and mislead our “followers.” Is that really what White thinks motivates me and other Catholic apologists and commentators? Apparently so, or he wouldn’t have written such a ludicrous thing. I don’t (for what it’s worth) reciprocate the cynicism. I think White (like most devoted Bible students) sincerely believes that he is interpreting the passage to the best of his abilities, and is trying his best to respect it and let it speak for itself. I think he’s dead wrong in his opinion, but I don’t have to attack his very motivations and modus operandi with uncharitable speculations, putting the worst spin on everything he does. That’s a major difference between Mr. White and I, and this hostile predisposition will no doubt color his comments throughout (just as I noted in my book with regard to historic Protestant exegesis).

Armstrong begins:

Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority, based on Moses’ seat, which phrase (or idea) cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishna, where a sort of teaching succession from Moses on down is taught. Thus, apostolic succession, whereby the Catholic Church, in its priests and bishops and popes, claims to be merely the custodian of an inherited apostolic Tradition, is also prefigured by Jewish oral tradition, as approved (at least partially) by Jesus himself.

So we see that Armstrong takes “the whole enchilada,” so to speak, and sets the highest bar possible, even “prefiguring” Roman apostolic Tradition in the Jewish form, though, he seems to allow a small out for himself with the parenthetic statement, “at least partially.” It is hard to know what this refers to at this point.

Mr. White, being the Bible scholar and exegete that he is, is certainly not unfamiliar with the notion of typology in Holy Scripture (though you’d never know that, reading the above). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia ([ISBE] a Protestant work, as will be all sources that I cite, unless indicated otherwise: edited by James Orr, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1956), discusses biblical “types”:

The Bible furnishes abundant evidence of the presence of types and of typical instruction in the Sacred Word. The NT attests this fact. It takes up a large number of persons and things and events of former dispensations, and it treats them as adumbrations and prophecies of the future. A generation ago a widespread interest in the study of typology prevailed . . .

. . . A type . . . must be a true picture of the person or the thing it represents or prefigures . . . A type always prefigures something future. A Scriptural type and predictive prophecy are in substance the same, differing only in form. This fact distinguishes between a symbol and a type. A symbol may represent a thing of the present or of the past as well as of the future, e.g., the symbols in the Lord’s supper. A type always looks to the future; an element of prediction must necessarily be in it. (Vol. 5, p. 3029)

Presbyterian pastor and writer Peter J. Leithart, writing in First Things (November 1997, 12-13), noted that modern evangelicals tend to reject typology (note that the ISBE above stated that things were different a mere “generation ago”):

Modern scholarship has approached the Old Testament in a very different manner. Rejecting typology as fanciful and unscientific, many theologians have treated the Old Testament as a historical document with little or no religious significance for the Church.

. . . For all their real differences in approach to the Bible, evangelicals are at one with Protestant modernism in their rejection of typology and, frequently enough, in their belief that Christianity is more or less purely internal, a religion of unmediated individual contact with God.

But the Church Fathers interpreted the Bible quite differently, Leithart informs us, noting:

. . . the typological exegesis of the Bible practiced by patristic and medieval theologians. Typological interpretation assumes that events and institutions of the Old Testament present (to use Augustine’s terminology) “latent” pictures of Christ, and the Christ to whom the Old Testament testifies is the totus Christus: Head and Body, Jesus and his Church. In this, the fathers and medieval theologians fully agreed with Paul, who wrote that the history of Israel’s wanderings in the wilderness were “things written for our instruction.”

Following the apostolic example, the fathers taught that Israel and “daughter Jerusalem”—and all brides and harlots of Old Testament history—manifest the Church under various guises. . . . the fathers plundered the Old Testament to divine the patterns of history. Because the interpretive path runs from old Israel through Christ to the new Israel, moreover, typology assumes that the New Covenant, like the Old, is concerned with a concrete, historical community.

. . . The typological method—by emphasizing that the Church as a real historical institution and communion was prophesied and typified in the Old Testament—provides theological grounding for the Church’s efforts to discipline the state.

This has to do with historic exegesis (precisely what my book was about). James White is out of touch with the exegesis of the earliest Christians, even with St. Augustine (whom he views very highly indeed, as I could easily prove from his own remarks), and pre-modernist Protestants. Thus, my delving into typology in the course of the extended argument of my book seems something foreign to him. Typology is no novel notion, either for the Fathers or many evangelical commentators through the centuries, but it seems to be for Mr. White.

I can’t help that, but in any event, he is free to argue that some particular interpretation of mine is unreasonable and implausible, according to the usual cross-referencing, systematics, linguistic considerations, etc. That is an unobjectionable method, but dismissing all types and shadows altogether is quite a bit more difficult to do, in light of historic exegesis: both Catholic and Protestant.

Following these claims Armstrong lists five “anomalous facts” for Protestants, other passages he believes likewise refer to “extrabiblical and oral tradition acknowledged by the New Testament writers.” These include 1 Cor. 10:4 and the rock that followed Israel in the wilderness; 1 Pet. 3:19, where Armstrong assumes the passage is drawing from 1 Enoch, together with Jude 14_15 and the citation of 1 Enoch 1:9; Jude 9 and the dispute between Michael and Satan over Moses’ body; 2 Tim. 3:8 and the naming of Jannes and Jambres; James 5:17 and the information that the drought had lasted for three years.

White outlines my argument. I will actually cite it, so readers know exactly what I stated:

Other examples of extrabiblical and oral tradition acknowledged by the New Testament writers include:

* 1 Corinthians 10:4, where St. Paul refers to a rock which “followed” the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement, in the related passages about Moses striking the rock to produce water (Exod. 17:1-7; Num. 20:2-13). Rabbinic tradition, however, does.

* 1 Peter 3:19, where St. Peter describes Christ’s journey to Sheol/Hades (“he went and preached to the spirits in prison“), [and] draws directly from the Jewish apocalyptic book 1 Enoch (12-16). Jude 14-15 directly quotes from 1 Enoch 1:9, and even states that Enoch prophesied.

* Jude 9, which concerns a dispute between Michael the archangel and Satan over Moses’ body, cannot be paralleled in the Old Testament, and appears to be a recounting of an oral Jewish tradition.

* In 2 Timothy 3:8, the reference to Jannes and Jambres cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Exod. 7:8 ff.).

* James 5:17 mentions a lack of rain for three years, which is likewise absent from the relevant Old Testament passage in 1 Kings 17. (p. 44)

He concludes his list with these words:

Since Jesus and the Apostles acknowledge authoritative Jewish oral tradition (in so doing, raising some of it literally to the level of written revelation), we are hardly at liberty to assert that it is altogether illegitimate. Jesus attacked corrupt traditions only, not tradition per se, and not all oral tradition. According to a strict sola Scriptura viewpoint, this would be inadmissible, it seems to me. (p. 44)

Immediately the careful reader will note that there seems to be no difference at all in Armstrong’s thinking between “authoritative Jewish oral tradition,” non-authoritative Jewish oral tradition, and any historical story, whether oral or written.

This is highly curious and inexplicable, since in my very act of mentioning “authoritative Jewish tradition,” it follows by simple logic that there must be something to the contrary which I (and anyone) could and would label “non-authoritative Jewish oral tradition,” and indeed, my mention of “corrupt traditions” presupposes this. Yet White accuses me of not making the very distinctions that I clearly made. Go figure . . . this is what happens when the unfortunate tendency to caricature opponents runs head on into simple logic and carefully reading what one’s opponent actually wrote, before immediately dashing off to tear it apart. For in such a rush, what is “refuted” is often not what the opponent actually wrote or believes. And that creates all sorts of problems and weakness in arguments, and holes large enough to drive a truck through.

What “any historical story” is supposed to refer to, is anyone’s guess, since context makes abundantly clear that I was referring exclusively to Jewish tradition.

Likewise, he leaves untouched the issues relating to the citation of Enoch, for surely he knows Enoch as a whole is not canonical, hence, is he actually insisting that only a portion of Enoch contains some kind of authoritative, inspired material?

My argument doesn’t necessitate regarding all such material as “inspired”; only authoritative and true. Remember how I phrased that to which I was referring: “extrabiblical and oral tradition acknowledged by the New Testament writers.” An inspired biblical book might cite any number of non-inspired books as true, insofar as the portion cited is concerned. That’s exactly what happened in Jude 14-15, where 1 Enoch 1:9 is directly quoted (as the footnote for this verse in my Oxford Annotated RSV Bible states), and is described by the apostle as that which Enoch “prophesied.” Whether that counts as “inspired” or not, on that basis, I don’t know, and I’ll leave that technical question for the appropriate scholars to decide.

But it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that what is cited is true, and an instance of true prophecy not different in kind from a prophecy of Jeremiah or Isaiah: whose prophecies are recorded in inspired Old Testament Scripture. And that’s just the point, isn’t it? If Jeremiah’s prophecy is regarded as inspired because it is in the Bible (OT), then Enoch’s must likewise be, because it is in the Bible (NT). Therefore an “extrabiblical tradition” was “acknowledged by the New Testament writers,” and my contention is unassailable. White can only try to minimize the implications of this, and attempt to show that it all fits in perfectly with his Baptist, sola Scriptura conception of authority, but he can’t discount the fact of it, because there it is . . .

All of these passages have sparked a great deal of discussion in both Protestant and Catholic biblical scholarship, but none of that discussion is referenced here. An allegedly “straightforward” reading is all that is noted.

That’s correct. One can’t write about everything all the time, and one chooses what to emphasize, where, and how deeply to delve into the subject matter at hand. What does that have to do with anything? White’s task is to refute what I have presented. Perhaps he does that later, but he hasn’t yet done so, and making non sequitur points like this, doesn’t bring him any closer to the conclusion of his task. If he wants to deal with these passages, then he can make his argument, and I’ll surely respond. One thing at a time . . .

Armstrong moves from here to the specifics of his response to the material in The Roman Catholic Controversy by stating, “I shall quote the heart of his subtle but thoroughly fallacious argument.” He cites the very beginning of the comments, to the point where I note that there is no way to trace this alleged tradition back to Moses, since this refers to an element of synagogue worship that did not come into existence until only a few hundred years prior to the time of Christ. He then writes,

White agrees that the notion is not found in the Old Testament, but maintains that it cannot be traced back to Moses. Yet the Catholic argument here does not rest on whether it can be traced historically to Moses, but on the act that it is not found in the Old Testament. Thus, White concedes a fundamental point of the Catholic argument concerning authority and sola Scriptura.

White skipped over roughly a page of material (mostly my page 45), where I cited the commentator Albert Barnes at length, and also the Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown commentary, and also noted how Jesus distinguished between good and bad traditions. Since we are centering primarily on my critique of his argument, this is not a major concern.

Yet, on the other hand, it can often be observed in White’s replies to Catholics, that he will pick and choose what he wants to respond to, rather than reply to everything (his ignoring of those portions of his opponents’ arguments might reasonably be construed as indicating a possibility that they are difficult for him to answer, since he skipped over them more or less arbitrarily). The passages of NT citing of extrabiblical traditions were not technically related to White’s own presentation, either, but he saw fit to mention them.

While I wish to wait to respond to the full argumentation until after outlining Armstrong’s response, I must point out in passing that “admitting” that Jesus is making reference to a concept that developed during the intertestamental period is hardly relevant to sola scriptura nor is it a concession to a “fundamental point of the Catholic argument.” There is nothing in sola scriptura that requires the NT to be silent about developments during the intertestamental period. There is nothing in the doctrine that requires the Bible to remain silent on the form of synagogue worship. This is simply wishful thinking on Armstrong’s part, once again.

I wasn’t arguing those things; rather, the topic at hand is whether there is an authoritative extrabiblical tradition, acknowledged by Jesus and the apostles. If some parts of those traditions can be cited as true in the NT, then it stands to reason that other parts can be true (and hence, authoritative) without being cited in the NT. White simply assumes without argument that anything which is fully authoritative must be in the Bible. But since that is the issue in dispute, assuming it does no good. It has to be rationally demonstrated, with biblical support. I’ve been providing biblical support for my contentions. But these complex points of consideration will obviously have to wait till White presents his “full” response. I presume it will eventually be forthcoming, since White’s response consisted of eight parts.

Further, unless I misread Armstrong, he saw a “prefigurement” of the Roman position in the Jewish one regarding tradition; yet, the Jews claimed their traditions did, in fact, go back to Moses, and yet here it seems Armstrong is admitting that the Jews could be wrong about the very origin of their traditions, and yet Jesus would still find the tradition binding.

I argued no such (intrinsically nonsensical) thing. White read that into my statements because he didn’t understand them (a sadly common occurrence, as we’ve seen in past installments of this discussion, and will often see again, surely, largely because he vastly underestimates his opponents and considers them much more “ignorant” than they are in fact — see the Introduction for many examples). I was making a logical point, reiterating that the Catholic reply to White’s sola Scriptura arguments does not require proof that Jewish oral traditions go back to Moses; only that some of them were considered authoritative by Jesus and the apostles. For my part, I assume that they do go back to Moses, because that is part of the biblical (and historical) record, too, and the early Christians continued this tradition, over against the quasi-sola Scriptura position of the Sadducees, the “liberals” of their time). But that aspect was not logically required for this particular argument to be effective in its purpose of refutation.

Does it follow that Rome could admit her traditions do not go back to the Apostles but they are still binding? We are not told.

No (now you’ve been told). It was a silly query to begin with.

Next we encounter the following paragraph:

White then cites Protestant Bible scholar Robert Gundry in agreement, to the effect that Jesus was binding Christians to the Pharisaical law, but not “their interpretive traditions.” This passage concerned only “the law itself,” with the “antinomians” in mind. How Gundry arrives at such a conclusion remains to be seen. White’s query about the Catholic interpretation, “Is this sound exegesis?” can just as easily be applied to Gundry’s fine-tuned distinctions that help him avoid any implication of a binding extrabiblical tradition. (pp. 46-47)

One will note that this is at best a partial accounting of the views I noted; but beyond this, there is no meaningful interaction with Gundry’s exegesis. And given that I have worked through a number of attempted arguments made by Armstrong in this book, I believe I can say with some foundation that I do not believe Dave Armstrong understands what he would have to do to provide an exegetical response to Gundry or myself or anyone else. He simply does not understand the field. Writing “Is this sound exegesis?” and then in essence saying, “Well, you too!” is a poor substitute for meaningful exegetical interaction, that’s for certain.

Here we go with more of White’s sadly typical condescension and patronizing of his opponent, leading to lack of argument or no rational argumentation at all. It is “(wishful) meta-analysis” rather than reasoned refutation and a demonstration of exactly how an opponent is in error. Let me briefly illustrate how far this method of “reply” differs from actual dialogue. A non-dialogue, or “mutual monologue” runs as follows:

1. X presents position A with a multitude of biblical proof texts and historical evidences.

2. Y basically ignores or quickly dismisses X’s biblical proof texts and historical evidences for position A with a one-sentence “reply” and proceeds to present position B with a multitude of alternate biblical proof texts and historical evidences.

Or, in a briefer form:

1. A
2. Not-A.

This is (sadly, too often) White’s frequent method. But real dialogue (which is what I seek), proceeds in a very different way:

1. X presents position A with a multitude of biblical proof texts and historical evidences.

2. Y offers alternative and (so he thinks) superior explanations of each of X’s biblical proof-texts and historical evidences, and then presents his own biblical proof texts and historical evidences for position B.

3. X offers alternative and (so he thinks) superior explanations of each of Y’s biblical proof-texts and historical evidences, counter-responds to the critique of his own previously-stated biblical proof texts and historical evidences, and then presents more of his own biblical and historical proofs (if he has any more on the subject).

4. Y again offers alternative explanations of X’s contentions, and/or counter-responds to X’s counter-response (or concedes the argument if position A is superior) . . . Etc.

5. X does the same in turn (if Y is still maintaining his position) and either proceeds or concedes the argument if position B is superior . . . Etc.

This is how the present discussion ought to proceed, if it is to be at all constructive and worthwhile. But will it? Judging from ten years’ past experience with Mr. White, it is highly unlikely, yet there’s always a first time . . . In any event, my method is the second one above; I welcome challenges, and relish arguing for what I think is a superior and true position, rather than ignoring and belittling my opponent as an ignoramus, in over his head, and presenting my positions as a preacher rather than as a disputant or person who provides reasoned argumentation in response to the other.

(5-5-05)

***

[see all the other installments of this multi-part debate on my James White web page: second section]

***