Does the Bible teach the Doctrine of the Papacy

Does the Bible teach the Doctrine of the Papacy?

Denying Opening Statement

Moses Flores

What are the claims of the Papacy? Why don’t Protestants submit to the rule of the Papacy? In 1308, Pope Boniface VIII issued a “papal bull” titled Unam Sanctum which stated that those “not committed to the care of Peter and His successors, they must confess that they are not of Christ’s sheep, even as the Lord says in John, ‘There is one fold and one shepherd’… Furthermore, that every human creature is subject to the Roman Pontiff, - this we declare, say, define, and pronounce to be altogether necessary to salvation.” The last part of what Rome says here is to be well noted. In order for a person to be saved, they must, of necessity, believe in the office of the Papacy as defined by Rome.”

This is no light claim, especially at the point in history in which it came. Remember this was not dogmatically defined – that is required for salvation – until 1308. This means that those who didn’t believe in the doctrine prior to this dogmatic definition were not required to believe in it for salvation. The same goes for all dogmatic decisions that came later. The First Vatican Council reiterated this by saying, “if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. [1] ” The same Vatican Council also stated that it “must be believed by all faithful Christian, namely that the apostolic see [the Magisterium] and the Roman Pontiff is the successor of the blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole church and father and teacher of all Christian people. [2]”

What does Rome teach about the Papacy? According to Roman Catholic Tradition, Peter was placed at the head of the other apostles by Christ and it was “instituted him a permanent and visible source foundation of unity of faith and communion [3].” Through apostolic succession, then, the successor of Peter, who would be the Pope, is conferred with the same “supreme and universal power over the Church. [4]” Rome uses scriptures such as Matthew 16:18 and interprets it as saying that Peter is the “rock” upon which Christ said he was going to build His Church as the basis for the Papacy [5]. Then in Matthew 16:19, Rome believes that the “keys of the kingdom” are given to Peter alone and that these keys are the “authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church” [553]. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the power to “bind and loose,” which are associated with the keys, “connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church” [553]. This power has recently been exercised by Pope Benedict XVI who has recently done away with the teaching on “limbo” allowing for non-baptized children to enter into heaven leaving the Church torn about certain issues including original sin and righteousness required for heaven.

Matthew 16:13-20 is believed to be Rome’s best support for the Papacy and contains one of the few portions of Scripture that has been “infallibly interpreted” by Rome. However, I do not believe this text supports the office of the Papacy as Rome describes it. We examine the text:

“When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, ‘Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?’ So they said, ‘Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’ He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter answered and said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.’ Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon bar Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And also I say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’ Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.”

In the plain meaning of the text, there is nothing to indicate that Peter was going to become the Pope as the Roman Catholic Church describes the office. Yet, Roman Catholic Tradition asserts that this text infallibly teaches the office of the Papacy. They claim that Jesus is saying to Peter, “You are Peter – the Rock – and upon you, as that Rock, I will build My Church,” thus placing Peter as the foundation of the Church. But is that really what the text is saying?

The context of this entire section of scripture is Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the Son of God. Therefore, any interpretation that deviates from this focus of Jesus’ identity as the Messiah is clearly missing the point. With this in mind, we see that Jesus questions his disciples about opinions among the many people that they have witnessed to and heard responses from about His own identity. The point of this questioning was to give Christ opportunity to clarify to the disciples who He really was so that they might not be left in mystery. Various opinions are then shared which go to show the inability to discern the presence of the very Son of God among them! Rather they conclude that He is a mere man even as John the Baptist and other prophets were.

Then Jesus asks them an even more profound and relevant question: Who do you say that I am? The “you”, here, is plural (autois). Since this question is addressed to all the disciples, it is going to follow that Peter speaks for the group and professes a common faith amongst all the disciples first. That is, Peter was not speaking only for himself when he confessed Jesus as the Christ. Rather, he spoke for all as he has done before (eg. John 6:68). So Peter is merely speaking as the first among equals and not from a position of superiority of faith. [6]

Peter’s confession evokes a blessing from Jesus: “Blessed are you, Simon bar Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but My Father who is in heaven.” The obvious point of what Jesus is saying is that recognition of Jesus’ identity cannot be attained through mere human reason and deduction, as we have already seen that the conclusions of the people were missing the mark. Rather, it must come by revelation from God the Father Himself. A similar theme is picked up in Jesus’ words in John 6:44 and 65 where Jesus says, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him…No one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.” What is interesting is that many of His followers turned away and quit following Jesus upon hearing these words. Jesus, at one point, even turned to the Twelve and asked them if they too would turn away from him. But Peter, answering for all the disciples, says, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (v. 68,69). A quick comparison of verse 69 and Matthew 16:16, 17 leads us to believe that all the disciples had received the revelation of Jesus as the Messiah from God.

We should notice that Peter is declared to be “blessed” after the confession of Jesus as the Christ is made. Therefore, it would seem to be the case that it was the content with the confession that rendered Peter in such a status. It would probably not be wrong to conclude that this same blessing is upon all who profess Jesus as the Christ, and that they themselves are “stones” even as Peter is a stone that makes up the Church (cf. I Peter 2:5).

Then Jesus says, “And I say to you,” still referring to Peter, “that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church…” At this point, the context DOES NOT CHANGE from the identity of Jesus as the Messiah. It should also be noted that in the Greek, Peter is called “Petros” (which means “rock”), but Jesus says that He will build His Church upon another kind of rock – “this rock” (petra in the Greek). John McCarthy comments on this:

“The word Jesus chose to use for rock, petra, is a femine noun that refers to a mass of rock. The New Testament uses this word in Matthew 7:24,25 to refer to a bedrock upon which a wise man build his house. Petra is also found later in Matthew’s Gospel with reference to Jesus’ tomb, which workers had carved out of solid rock (Matthew 27:60).

Peter’s name, Petros, on the other hand, is masculine in gender and refers to a boulder or a detached stone. Greek literature also uses it of a small stone that might be picked up an thrown. [7]”

The significance of this is that Jesus said that He would build the Church out of a different kind of rock than Peter was. Grammatically we note the dative article th (this). Jesus is not referring to the same Rock ( Petros) . Essentially, Jesus told Peter, “You are Stone and upon this bedrock I will build My church.” This is easier to see in the original Greek language.

Now Rome, at this point, argues that we should try to understand how it would have been said in the Aramaic language since Jesus probably spoke in this language more. The fact is that it is the Greek text that was inspired by God [8]. Also, we note the Gospel writer choose different Greek words under the direction of the Holy Spirit (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:19-21). If Matthew understood the Aramaic as Rome often contends to be the same rock, then why did he choose to make a distinction? I think that if the Bible had been written with the intention of teaching that Peter was going to be the foundation of the Church at this point, then I think that it could have read, “And I say to you that you are Peter and on you I will build My Church.” Instead, the Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to write of another kind of rock than Peter was.

Continuing in Jesus’ words, “and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” Hades is the realm of the dead, or hell, (cf. Matt. 11:23, Luke 16:23,24). The entrance, or gates, to Hades is death. The promise here is that the Church of God will not be conquered even by death itself! It is also a promise of the victory of Christ church over the forces of evil[1] [9] (cf. John 16:33; Romans 16:20, Ephesians 6:10-13; Rev. 12:13-16; 17:14; 20:7-10). It is not a promise of infallibility. More will be said on this later.

Then Jesus tells Peter, “and I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This is a promise here because the verb for giving is a future tense verb. Therefore, at this point, Christ is NOT giving the “keys of the kingdom” here. As mentioned before, the Roman Catholic Church interprets this passage as Jesus giving supreme authority to Peter [553]. But is this what the Bible is saying here? Grammatically, it cannot be saying what Rome says.

It is granted that keys can often represent authority. The problem with the Roman Catholic interpretation is that there are no other scriptures that explicitly teach that Peter received or exercised this kind of supreme authority over the other apostles or the Church. Also, the figurative reference to “keys” often specify their significance as the ability to “grant access” or to “deny access” (cf. Isaiah 22:22; Luke 11:52; Revelation 3:7,8; 9:1,2; 20:1-3). There is Biblical support for Peter, along with the other apostles, exercising this kind of authority. McCarthy notes that:

“It was through Peter, along with the eleven, that God first offered salvation to the Jewish nation after its rulers had crucified Christ (Acts 2:14-36). It was through Peter, along with Philip and John, that the gospel first came to the Samaritans (Acts 8:4-25). God also used Peter to open the kingdom of heaven to the first Gentile believers (Acts 932-10:48). Peter initially and Paul later were the human instruments by which God ‘opened a door of faith to the Gentiles’ (Acts 14:27). [10]”

The “binding” and “loosing” are rabbinical terms that mean “forbidding and permitting. [11]” This same power was given to ALL the disciples by Jesus in Matthew 18:18 where Jesus says, “Assuredly, I say to you (all the apostles, plural in the Greek), whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This power is an obvious reference to Church discipline. Certainly, it would be a giant leap of logic to conclude from the basis of this text that the keys are the “power to absolve sins” and “pronounce doctrinal judgments” [553] as the Roman Catholic Church teaches especially since the God-breathed Scriptures make no such mention of these qualities.

On as side note, James White argues that if the Roman Catholic wishes to argue that Peter was promised to receive that actual keys of the kingdoms in distinction from the other apostles (contrary to Matthew 18:18), they must be forced to admit that “the actual giving of these keys is never recorded for us anywhere in Scripture [12]” which would seems to be a significant bit of information to leave out of the redemptive history of the Church.

Finally, Jesus tells his disciples not to share with others what has been revealed to them about him. This statement reveals that the entire context and point of all that Christ has said up to this point has been about Christ. Christ told them not to share what He said about Himself as the Messiah, thus telling us what Christ was really saying. Christ did not say, “Don’t tell anybody about what I said about Myself and Peter.” This point is simply proof that Christ did not change subjects from His own identity to Peter’s place in the Church at any point in the dialogue.

Clearly, then, I do not believe that Matthew 16:13-20 supports any type of Roman Catholic interpretation. Instead, it is clear that the Roman Catholic interpretation inserts many things into the text that are not there. This is Rome’s best scriptural offer for the office of the Papacy, but if the Papacy is not taught here, it is unlikely that it would be anywhere else in the Bible.

In my next presentation I plan to deal with the early Patristic exegesis of this important passage regarding the doctrine of the Papacy. God bless.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] First Vatican Council, Fourth Session, chapter 2:5

[2] First Vatican Council, Fourth Session, chapter 3:1

[3] Lumen Gentium: Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chapter 3, sec. 18 of the Second Vatican Council, ~http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents

[4] ibid. sec. 22

[5] “Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: ‘you are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.’ Our Lord then declared to him: ‘You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.’ Christ, the ‘living stone’ thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakeable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from everylapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.” (from 552 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church)

[6] “When Peter speaks up and confesses that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, he is confessing the faith of all the disciples, not merely his own.” (White, The Roman Catholic Controversy, pg. 117)

[7] McCarthy, The Gospel according to Rome, pg. 239

[8] James White notes: “We could spend much time arguing whether Matthew was written in Aramaic; I could cite Alexander Bruce, G.H. Schodde, D.A. Carson and Robert Gundry. But I shall simply allow the leading New Testament textual scholar, Kurt Aland, to summarize my position: ‘There is no longer any doubt that Greek was the language in which all the parts of the New Testament were originally written…’” (The Roman Catholic Controversy, pg. 116)

[9] Hendriksen, William New Testament Commentary: Matthew, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1973, pg. 649.

[10] ibid.

[11] ibid. pg. 651

[12] White, The Roman Catholic Controversy, pg. 118.