Does the Bible teach the Doctrine of the Papacy?

 

First Cross Examination Rebuttal Statement

 

Moses Flores

 

 

            It was asserted that the office of the Papacy has some Old Testament foundations from the book of Isaiah, chapter 22, verse 22 which reads,

 

“And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David.  He hall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.”  (ESV)

 

            From here it was asserted that the Lord “chooses and earthly representative to lead His people” and that “this is virtually the same blessing given to Simon Peter” and there the similarities between this text and that of Matthew 16:19 are clear.

            Well let’s first examine the context of the Isaiah passage and see if the meaning is a “foreshadowing” of Peter’s reception of the keys.

            In Isaiah 22, the prophet begins to prophecy against Judea which is directed particularly to Jerusalem.  He recalls to them their futile trust in weaponry and things of that sort in their combat all while failing to “not look to Him who did it, or see him who planned it long ago,” who was the LORD (v1-11).  Their sin of unbelief would bring about their inevitable punishment from God with no atonement to be provided for them (v12-14).

            Beginning in verse 15, the prophet begins to direct judgment to Shebna, the current “head of the house”, or the steward, for the King of Israel, Hezekiah.  He says,

 

“Thus says the Lord GOD of hosts, ‘Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him: What have you to do here, and whom have you here, that you have cut out here a tomb for yourself, you who cut out a tomb on the height and carve a dwelling for yourself in the rock?  Behold, the LORD will hurl you away violently, O you strong man.  He will seize firm hold on you and whirl you around and around, and throw you like a ball into a wide land.  There you shall die, and there shall be your glorious chariots, you shame of your master’s house.  I will thrust you from your office, and you will be pulled down from your station.”

 

            Apparently, Shebna”s position as steward had puffed him up so that he wanted to make a name for himself especially in what he would leave behind.  Thus, he sought to build for himself an exalted tomb of sorts for himself.  The LORD would have none of his pride especially for a steward, and not the owner of what he was overseeing the property and affairs of someone with greater dignity than he.  Thus, says the he will take away from him the position that he held to so dearly and give it to another.  Isaiah continues,

 

“In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind sour sash on him, and will commit your authority to his hand.  And he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.  And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David.  He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” (v 20-22)

 

            Now God reveals who would take his place:  Eliakim the son of Hilkiah.  Now, following the personal pronouns in these verses reveal that this prophecy historically refers to and was fulfilled in the person of Eliakim (cf. Isa. 36:22; 37:2).  Now, let’s examine the first assertion that “the Lord chooses an earthly representative to represent his people.” 

            Is Eliakim, when given the “keys of the House of David” representing God’s people?  Hardly!  Eliakim, when given the “keys of the house of David” is not given rule over the kingdom!  It is over the household including the treasury of the royal palace, etc…for all practical purposes, he was the “palace administrator”.  Eliakim is a servant of the true ruler, the King, and does not make any decisions regarding anything outside of the palace.  He is a servant of the real representative of the people of God, the king, Hezekiah.  There is no evidence at all of Eliakim using “the keys of the kingdom of David” to make any binding decisions for Israel at all!  At most, we see him greeting the king of Assyria in Jerusalem representing the king, not the Lord – that was the prophet’s job mainly – and taking a message to the king from the king of Assyria and to the prophet Isaiah on behalf of the king (cf. Isa. 36 – 37:5). 

            So far, this prophecy of verse 22 is simply intended for Shebna and is his judgment from God.  It was spoken to him.  We see its fulfillment in that Eliakim is given stewardship over the palace affairs for the King of Judah, Hezekiah, in Jerusalem.  His authority is not over the southern kingdom, nor was it a representative position for Judah.  It was simply an administrative position given to him by God, through the king.  So the context of the passage is one of judgment, and not blessing as in Matthew 16:18-19.

            Next, it was asserted that this is “virtually the same blessing given to Simon Peter”.  Again, was it?  The palace administrator had access to physical things like the treasury and palatial affairs.  And again, the Isaiah passage is spoken in the context of judgment not blessing.  Also, the power of the keys is given to all the Disciples in Matthew 18:18.  All the disciples were given this power, not just Peter.  Also, if the giving of the keys was so important, how come Scripture does not record the actual giving of the keys to Peter?  Such a crucial piece of evidence finds no place at all in God-breathed Scripture.

            Was this passage “foreshadowing” Peter’s reception of the keys?  Not at all.  It was a historical passage that was fulfilled in Eliakim the son of Hilkiah.  We see him in authority.  The connection is a superficial one based on the concept of “keys” and “authority”.  Similarity in phrases doesn’t necessarily mean the connection asserted.

           

            Next ,there were some assertions made regarding the Holy Spirit of God.  It was asserted that the Holy Spirit is not the only one leading the Church, but also the decisions of the leaders of the Church and that “one cannot exist without the other” as well as that the Holy Spirit “cannot speak without the use of God’s chosen instruments.”  I can only say that such blasphemies against the Spirit reveal how much authority is given to the Pope over God to say that God Himself in the person of the Holy Spirit NEEDS creatures to do His will and work.  The Scriptures are clear that God needs nothing from anyone (cf. Acts 17:24-25).  No creature is necessary to God.

 

            It was asserted that the Church council Acts 15 reveals Peter’s headship in the office of the Papacy.  I do not believe this to be the case at all.  In fact, the entire book of Acts reveals that no such office of the Papacy existed at all!!  For instance, in Acts 8:14, the Bible says that “when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them”.  If Peter really was the Pope of the Church, then this passage raises the question of why Peter is being “sent” by others.  Wouldn’t Peter, if he were the Pope, be the one doing the sending?  Instead, it is clear that Peter is in submission to the authority of the “apostles who were at Jerusalem.”

            Also, in Acts 11, shortly after Peter has returned from witnessing to Cornelius, a Gentile, Peter is asked to give an account of his evangelistic dealings with a non-Jew.  The Bible says, “Now the apostles and brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.  And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him, saying, ‘You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!’ (v1-3)”  First, it seems rather odd that a council, which would have no power unless they were united to the Pope, would be questioning their Supreme Pontiff in such a manner.  And instead of pleading for himself as “the rock” or the foundation of the Church or the Head of the apostles, as Roman Catholicism teaches, Peter begins to humbly plead his case to this council of fellow apostles and brethren.

            Later in Acts 15, a council is assembled in Jerusalem to settle the matter of Gentiles in the church and whether or not they should be circumcised according to the law of Moses.  Notice in verses 6 and 7:  “Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.  And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up…”  This initial question is, if Peter was the Pope, and he was promised infallibility in doctrinal matters, why wasn’t the council under his leadership and why wasn’t Peter making an “ex cathedra” pronouncement of the acceptability of the Gentiles?  Also, it seems fairly obvious that Peter is treated as an equal apostle among the rest of the apostles.  Notice also that it is James that is acting as the presiding apostle throughout this meeting.  This is seen in verse 13, where James, after Peter and Paul and Barnabas had spoken, it is James who gives the final summative pronouncement and conclusion to the council (v 13-21).  Also, it is the entirety of the apostles, elders and brethren at this council that authoratively write to the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia (v23).  It is not a “Papal Bull” or some sort of “ex cathedra” statement from Peter!  Certainly, if Peter was the Pope, this is indeed an odd case.  Acts 15:11 are Peter’s final words in the entire book of Acts as well.

            . 

 

            Finally, I want clear some false assertions that were made.  These are the assertions:

 

“if the keys to the kingdom of heaven is the confession of Jesus being the Christ, then Peter already has those keys.  That means Jesus would have said "you have the keys to the kingdom of heaven."  But the Lord is not saying anything of this sort.”

 

“But you say:  No Jesus gives the keys to everyone.  We all can decide what is allowed and what is not allowed.”

 

“But with regard to making the decisions for the church,  how can you reply that all are commissioned to make these binding decisions when the bible shows only the leaders of the Church making these binding decisions?”

 

Logically, these are “straw man” arguments as I have never asserted that they “keys are the confession of Jesus being the Christ”, nor have I asserted “that Jesus gave the keys to everyone”; at most, He gave them to the disciples.  Neither have I ever argued that “all are commissioned to make binding decisions”.  At best, I have argued that Scripture alone, in our previous debate, possess the sole infallible authority to make binding decisions for us.