In other posts, I've discussed some neglected material in Ephesians, a portion of the Bible that's often underestimated in apologetics. See here regarding Jesus' Bethlehem birthplace and Ephesians 2. Or see here regarding Ephesians 6:1-3 as evidence against the idea that the early Christians set a false date for Jesus' second coming, for example.
Another context in which Ephesians is important is the papacy. Think of all the topics covered in Ephesians that are relevant, even though it's such a short letter: the church as the body of Christ, Christian unity, the church compared to a building with a distinction made between different types of stones, order within the church, etc. Roman Catholics claim the papacy is important in contexts like the ones addressed in Ephesians. Supposedly, the Pope is the head of the church, which is relevant to Paul's comments about subjects like the body metaphor for the church in chapter 1 and the comments on church order in chapter 4. We're told that Peter is a foundation of the church in a different way than the other apostles, which is relevant in Ephesians 2:20 and elsewhere. We're supposed to think that the papacy is the center of Christian unity, and Paul writes about the principles of church unity in Ephesians.
But Paul's use of the body metaphor for the church makes no mention of a papal role for Peter and the bishops of Rome. Jesus is described differently than the other foundation stones in Ephesians 2:20, but Peter isn't. Paul's comments on church unity and church order say nothing about a papacy. Ephesians 4:11 mentions apostles in the plural first, which is reminiscent of 2:20 and 1 Corinthians 12:28. Paul seems to have thought that the first rank in church leadership is the apostles, not Peter and the bishops of Rome.
I mentioned 1 Corinthians 12. The point I'm making in this post isn't that Ephesians by itself is sufficient to assess the papacy. Rather, Ephesians is part of a cumulative case, and its significance in that case is often underestimated.
For more about the evidence outside Ephesians, see here and the Papacy post label here. You can also search under other relevant post labels (Simon Peter, Church Authority, Ecclesiology, etc.).
Good point. I also think that Galatians 1:8 is a very strong argument against the RC teaching of the infallibility of the papacy and/or magisterium, and even in favor of the much-abused "private judgement." Paul is putting it on the Galatians to know what the gospel was that was original taught to them, to compare it to something else that they might be taught, even by apostles, and to reject anything that is contrary to the original gospel.
ReplyDelete