Wednesday, February 28, 2024

Catholic Answers vs. Clement of Alexandria (and Eusebius) on Peter's Marriage

Here's an interesting compare and contrast between Catholic Answers and Clement of Alexandria (and Eusebius) on whether or not Peter was married. The biblical text which fuels this comparison is 1 Corinthians 9:5. Paul says that the Apostles have particular "rights," and one such right is taking a wife along when ministering... just as the Apostle Peter did! Here is the passage from the NAS:

3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we not have a right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working? 7 Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit of it? Or who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock?

Out of curiosity, I consulted the North American magisterium, Catholic Answers, to find out what this verse really means (read: sarcasm). What intrigued me about their answer was that they included a quote from Clement of Alexandria to substantiate their answer. Here's what Catholic Answers stated, 

...[T]he apostles [were] accompanied by 'sister women' who could assist them in ministering to women—for example, at full-immersion baptisms, where a question of modesty could arise, or in cases where it would be more appropriate for a woman to perform a charitable or catechetical function. Clement of Alexandria agreed, saying the women were not the wives of the apostles but were female assistants who could enter the homes of women and could teach them there (Stromata III, 6). In short, I think Peter was a widower at the time his mother-in-law was healed. 

With as much dripping sarcasm as I can muster through the printed word: The Fathers! The Fathers! The Fathers! So... I then went off to see what Clement of Alexandria said in context, and well... he didn't say what Catholic Answers asserts. In fact, he says the opposite, and none other than Eusebius backs Clement up on it! Here's the text from Clement (bolding mine):

Clement of Alexandria:

52. How then? Did not the righteous in ancient times partake of what God made with thanksgiving? Some begat children and lived chastely in the married state. To Elijah the ravens brought bread and meat for food.  And Samuel the prophet brought as food for Saul the remnant of the thigh, of which he had already eaten. But whereas they say that they are superior to them in behaviour and conduct, they cannot even be compared with them in their deeds. "He who does not eat," then, "let him not despise him who eats; and he who eats let him not judge him who does not eat; for God has accepted him." Moreover, the Lord says of himself: "John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He has a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking and they say, Behold a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and a sinner." Or do they also scorn the apostles? Peter and Philip had children, and Philip gave his daughters in marriage.

53. Even Paul did not hesitate in one letter to address his consort. The only reason why he did not take her about with him was that it would have been an inconvenience for his ministry. Accordingly he says in a letter: "Have we not a right to take about with us a wife that is a sister like the other apostles?"  But the latter, in accordance with their particular ministry, devoted themselves to preaching without any distraction, and took their wives with them not as women with whom they had marriage relations, but as sisters, that they might be their fellow-ministers in dealing with housewives. It was through them that the Lord's teaching penetrated also the women's quarters without any scandal being aroused. We also know the directions about women deacons which are given by the noble Paul in his second letter to Timothy. Furthermore, the selfsame man cried aloud that "the kingdom of God does not consist in food and drink," not indeed in abstinence from wine and meat, "but in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit."  Which of them goes about like Elijah clad in a sheepskin and a leather girdle? Which of them goes about like Isaiah, naked except for a piece of sacking and without shoes? Or clothed merely in a linen loincloth like Jeremiah? Which of them will imitate John's gnostic way of life? The blessed prophets also lived in this manner and were thankful to the Creator.

Granted, there is some ambiguity because the English word for wife being used is, "consort." Nor do I know which Clement source Catholic Answers used.  Could it be that I'm simply misreading Clement? Could it be that I'm demonstrating "Protestant" bias? Nope. Check out what Eusebius wrote, reading the same context: 

Eusebius: Chapter 30 The Apostles That Were Married

1. Clement, indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after the above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives. "Or will they, says he, reject even the apostles? For Peter and Philip begot children; and Philip also gave his daughters in marriage. And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife, whom he did not take about with him, that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry."

2. And since we have mentioned this subject it is not improper to subjoin another account which is given by the same author and which is worth reading. In the seventh book of his Stromata he writes as follows: "They say, accordingly, that when the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition toward those dearest to them." This account being in keeping with the subject in hand, I have related here in its proper place.

Conclusion
Frankly, I appreciate the writings of the church fathers, but I do not hold them to be that which is the final voice that determines what a Biblical passage means. On the other hand, Rome's defenders do claim the church fathers are of key importance to establish the validity of Roman Catholicism. This text from Clement and its use by Catholic Answers demonstrates a severe disconnect. When they cite something... look it up!  

13 comments:

Ms. X said...

Do you have a current link to your old paper "Luther and the Canon of Scripture"? None of the links I have found in older blog posts and elsewhere seem to work.

Ms. X said...

Never mind the above question - I found it! I just hadn't looked hard enough. Thank you!

James Swan said...

Sorry for the confusion. That old paper is only available via the Internet Archive. It was previously hosted on a website that no longer exists (ntrmin.org).

Ken Temple said...

Excellent find, James!


James Swan said...

Thank you!

Anonymous said...

James or Ken,

Are you familiar with J.N. Darby's translation of the Bible? If so, what is your opinion of it?

James Swan said...

Hi Anonymous,

I haven't done any meaningful studies on Darby's translation, and other than having a copy of it via theological software, I have not utilized it.

That said, I have two basic observations- First, if I recall correctly, Darby was a dispensationalist. This does not necessarily mean though that he could not produce a proper translation of the Bible because of a theological leaning. Second, I tend to use translations of the Bible that are not the result of one person's efforts. Similar to my previous point though, having multiple people working on a translation does not necessarily ensure its accuracy (for instance, the latest version of the NIV now uses inclusive language).

For my own daily use of an English translation of the Bible, I tend to use the 1984 NIV (for a sort of dynamic equivalence translation) and the NAS (for a formal equivalence)... but because now so many English Bible versions are available now, I use many different translations for compare and contrast.

Perhaps Ken has some insight here.

Anonymous said...

Another question. Is Jesse's "Rational Christian" blog a credible source to you in researching Roman Catholicism? I want to study that religion more and am looking for recommendations.

James Swan said...

There's a lot of good content on that blog.... my take is that whatever source you use, get in the habit of checking the facts presented... including the information presented on my blog as well.

JS

Anonymous said...

James,

What do you make of Mr. Albrect's latest claims about transubstantiation:

https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-theological-paradox-within-doctrine.html

James Swan said...

Hello Anonymous,

I skimmed over the entry. I think an interesting point is raised... if I understand the argument correctly: once the elements of the body and blood of Christ are consumed, they cease to exist in a sense because of the human function of digestion. Christ's body therefore ceases to exist.

If I were a Roman Catholic, I would respond to this argument simply by citing the Catechism:

1416 Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ increases the communicant's union with the Lord, forgives his venial sins, and preserves him from grave sins. Since receiving this sacrament strengthens the bonds of charity between the communicant and Christ, it also reinforces the unity of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ.

I suspect Rome's defenders would respond by saying that the body and blood does not necessarily cease to exist once one partakes, but rather unites a partaker with the "Mystical Body of Christ."



Anonymous said...

Does he percieve some contradiction? If the bread is transformed into Christ’s body and is no longer bread, how can Christ still be present as the “bread of life”? Is he arguing against the idea the idea that the bread can both be transformed into Christ’s body and still be present as bread for Christ to be the “bread of life?”

James Swan said...

Ah, ok, I looked over the post again closer. I misunderstood the argument. The post says,

"If the substance of the bread is gone, replaced by the substance of Christ’s body, then the symbolic representation of Christ as the bread of life is also gone, creating a contradiction. If the substance of the bread is no longer present, then the bread of life cannot be present either, as the bread itself has ceased to exist in its original substance. How can bread be both transformed and still be present as bread for Christ to be the bread of life? How can the bread be transformed into the body of Christ and still be considered bread?"

So yes, according to the post, there is a problem (paradox? contradiction?). I think Rome's defenders would not think it a contradiction but probably see the mass as a perpetual miracle in which the finite (bread) and infinite (Christ) combine in some sort of way.