Home

Scripture and Structure: Why Jesus used apostles to found the Church (part 1)

Scripture & StructureAs a child of Protestantism & further as a ten-year long Baptist & a ten-year long Calvinisti & having spent 15 years as part of a heresy that claimed its case rests on the "Bible alone", this topic for me is one that is amazing.   The question to frame the topic is this, "Why did Jesus use apostles to found the Church"?  He could have just as well simply preached the Gospel & let each individual carry the message to the next -- indeed this is often how Christians tend to operate today.  Or Jesus could have written down His teachings or had someone transcribe His words immediately & by-passed having apostles at all.

Perhaps someone might argue that Jesus used apostles because He had to use someone to keep His message unified, but then again wouldn't Jesus having written or transcribing His words accomplish this...perhaps even better than through apostles?

Before someone thinks I am about to make an argument for "Apostolic Succession" (such as in Roman Catholicism's claim of a spiritual lineage from Peter to present), please realize that is not my argument.

 

The Bible calls the apostles the foundation of the household of God (Eph 2:19-21).  Further, Jesus said He'd build His Church on the apostles (Matthew 16:18).  But wait, let's look at that verse:

And I also 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. (NKJV)

This is the classic proof-text used by Roman Catholic Apostolic Successionists, followed quickly by verse 19.

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.  (NKJV)

From these two verses, according to the Apostolic Successionalists we are supposed to conclude that Peter was the first Pope & that all succeeding Popes would have the same authority as Peter to "bind or loose" -- tell the Church what is & isn't correct.

But an interesting thing happens when we look at a later reference to this "binding & loosing".

Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.  (Matthew 18:18 NKJV)

In this verse, Jesus is speaking to ALL of His disciples.  It is further telling that the context of this discussion was started with a question by the disciples:

At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” (Matthew 18:1 NKJV)

This would have been the perfect opportunity for Jesus to inform or re-assert that He has chosen Peter to be the head of the Church.  But Jesus doesn't do this, instead He speaks to ALL of His disciples & tells them ALL that whatever ANY of them "bind or loose" it shall be.  What a perfect way to show how & why Jesus uses apostles.  

Jesus  continues to instruct His disciples about what their role is to be:

Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:19-20 NKJV)

That is yet another proof-text taken away from its denomination usage -- as Pentecostals/Charismatics often use the above verses to promote a "name it & claim it" doctrine.  Rather, we see Jesus answer the initial question & laying out the role of the apostles & how they will ALL have authority to "bind & loose" & that together they are as Eph 2:19-21 states, the foundation of the Church. 

These verses inform us also about another famous proof-text often employed by those who may down play the role of the apostles.

However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.  (John 16:13 NKJV)

Many Christians will utilize this verse as almost a magic mantra that means they can just pray & POOF! -- they are guided into all truth as they read the Bible for themselves.  But is that what this verse is really saying?

Looking at the entire context of John 16, we see Jesus warning the apostles of what is about to befall them. That they are about to be persecuted & that Jesus is about to go away.  But Jesus isn't going to leave them to fend for themselves.  There is a reason Jesus hand-picked apostles.

“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.  (John 16:12-15 NKJV)

These verses, along with the others already quoted are building the case that Jesus hand-picked apostles with every intent to inspire & guide them to build & guide the Church.  The Holy Spirit was sent to THE APOSTLES to guide THEM into all truth (another way of saying the apostles were going to be inspired).

Of course, I am not trying to say that individual Christians aren't led by the Holy Spirit in some manner, but that is not what John 16:13 is talking about.

In conclusion of part one of this series, we should understand that the apostles were not just Christians with a bit of an inside game, but Jesus hand-picked the apostles for a reason -- to found & guide the Church as the apostles were taught by Jesus personally & via the Holy Spirit.  This should cause Christians to be wary of so easily writing off the Church in favor of their own personal & private interpretations.  I see Christians (& have myself at times) often having a kind of disdain for the "institutional" Church.  They like to paint a picture where the Church in history has been this vague, fleeting entity or merely some local representation.  Some groups will even claim the true Church had ceased to exist at some point & that they had to "restore" it.  But, rather as Jesus said the "gates of hades would not prevail" against His Church & thus the Church is that household of God always existing & expressed throughout time & through various means & manifestations but always through the doctrines that Jesus taught His hand-picked apostles.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

What is your opinion about

What is your opinion about the parallelism between Matthew 16:17-19 and Isaiah 22:20-22?

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: 21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. 22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Mt 16:17-19 compared to Is 22:20-22

Hello again 3abdulmesii7.
I am curious why Mt 18:18-19 is not included in this comparison since it is almost a word for word match to Mt 16:18. The "keys" were given to ALL of the apostles, not just Peter. True that the Mt 16:18 passage seems to address Peter only, but there is a reason we have 4 Gospels. They show us what is really intended by showing us many perspectives on the same matter. In this case, we MUST consider that Mt 18:18-19 informs us that Mt 16:18 wasn't just about Peter.

If there is a comparison between Is 22:20-20 and Mt 16:17-19, we must NOT ignore that same connection would be there for Mt 18:18-19. Thus, the "key" analogy is that Jesus is telling the apostles that He is granting them authority. This authority was not being granted to Peter alone as it was to Eliakim. If Mt 18:18-19 didn't exist, the Papists may have a mild point even though it would still require a lot of extrapolation to get to the point of Apostolic Succession; of passing authority to others. However, we must further consider the more direct comparison of Is 22:20-22 which is Rev 3:7 which says:

"And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write, 'These things says He who is holy, He who is true, "He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens":"

Are we to believe this is a reference to Peter instead of Jesus, considering the continued context of Rev 3:7-12 certainly sounds more like Jesus than Peter. Therefore, the "keys" are the authority of Jesus which He bestowed for the time, on ALL of the apostles, not just Peter.

I hope this helps.

Please see my more detailed comments on Apostolic Secessionism here: http://thekingdomcome.com/scripture_and_structurept1#comment-1738

the Apostles

We see in Acts that the Apostles recieve the Holy Spirit, so we can know that their teaching was protected from error. The trouble is, what happened immediately after John died? Did the ability of some person or some group of people to teach without error just disappear?
The time after the apostles die is the time when the Church is most going to need a charism of infallibility. John 14:18 says, "I will not leave you orphans." Jesus says, in Matthew 28:20, "I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." I find it inconcievable that Jesus is going to forsake the Church precisely when we need him most. At this point, there must have been a charism of infallibility active, or something like it. The trouble is that Protestantism does not posit any such thing.

With regards to Peter, the scriptures are fairly clear. In Matthew 16:19, Jesus says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," and He says that to no other apostle, although it is true that the other apostles recieved a general authority to bind and loose. Also, there's John 21:15-17. "He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep." Also note Luke 22:31-32: "31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." Also note that Peter, James, and John go up Mount Tabor with Jesus to witness His transfiguration. Notice how Peter's name is at the head of that list in scripture.

Apostolic Succession #1

Hello 3abdulmesii7,
Thank you for the comments and the questions. I'll quote you and then comment.

3abdulmesii7 wrote:
We see in Acts that the Apostles recieve the Holy Spirit, so we can know that their teaching was protected from error. The trouble is, what happened immediately after John died? Did the ability of some person or some group of people to teach without error just disappear?
The time after the apostles die is the time when the Church is most going to need a charism of infallibility.

I agree that the apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Their distinction was different. After the last apostle dies, there is no biblical precept to say that inspiration was to be passed on to anyone else. Also, there is no biblical precept that says the Church is "most going to need a charism of infallibility" after the death of the last apostle. As a matter of fact, if we did still have an inspired representative of the apostles today, I would suggest we follow that person instead of ever trying to interpret the Bible on our own. Since you appear to be an advocate of Papalism, I'd imagine this would be your point anyone -- that we should follow the Pope?

However, I do want to agree with you that there is a problem with how people approach the Bible, in that we often make ourselves our own popes -- interpreting the text outside of any historic Christian interpretation.

3abdulmesii7 wrote:

John 14:18 says, "I will not leave you orphans." Jesus says, in Matthew 28:20, "I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." I find it inconcievable that Jesus is going to forsake the Church precisely when we need him most. At this point, there must have been a charism of infallibility active, or something like it. The trouble is that Protestantism does not posit any such thing.

Actually Protestantism DOES posit such a thing, it is called The Word of God. The apostles were handpicked by Jesus (John 15:16) and guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13) for a purpose -- not just so that they could be the verbal mouthpieces of God, but so that they could bring about the closed canon of Scripture. (2 Thes 2:15) If the canon isn't closed and there is still an apostolic representative among us (eg. the Pope), then his words are just as worthy of been part of the Bible as the first 12 apostles.

3abdulmesii7 wrote:

With regards to Peter, the scriptures are fairly clear. In Matthew 16:19, Jesus says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," and He says that to no other apostle, although it is true that the other apostles recieved a general authority to bind and loose. Also, there's John 21:15-17. "He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep."

See, there is the problem in the very first sentence. The scriptures AREN'T "fairly clear" that Peter was the first pope and that he would pass on this role to others -- which is the point you are driving toward -- apostolic succession. Even before the Protestants came along, historic Christianity did NOT see the scriptures as teaching Peter as the 1st pope. As a matter of fact, post AD70 and after the last apostle died, the Church was governed by a college of Bishops/elders which oversaw churches in various cities. We see this model even in Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5. The intent for after the apostles were gone was to have elders "ruling" in the churches. There is never a hint of a Petrine heir even if we might see Peter as the leader of the 12 apostles. The authority of the "keys" was given not just to Peter but to all of the apostles as noted in several verses. Mt 21:21, and Mt 18:18-19 which is almost the exact quote of Mt 16:19, except that Mt 18:18-19 makes it clear that not only is this apostolic authority given to all of the apostles; but that their agreement empowers/validates this authority. Papalists almost want to make it out that Peter had an extra dose of inspiration. If that is so, then it is odd that Paul would dare challenge Peter. (Gal 2:11) Peter could have responded that he was a chosen leader the apostles and that Paul, especially being almost a 13th apostle, had no right to question Peter. Further, we aren't told too much about Peter's apostolic work. It would seem by the work alone that if there was a leader of the apostles, it would have been Paul since a sizable part of the N.T. is about Paul's ministry.

3abdulmesii7 wrote:

Also note Luke 22:31-32: "31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." Also note that Peter, James, and John go up Mount Tabor with Jesus to witness His transfiguration. Notice how Peter's name is at the head of that list in scripture.

This is all extrapolation that doesn't say anything about Peter being the leader over the apostles, only that Peter needed more faith and when he learned his lesson (not to be so arrogant) that he should help the others. The name oder of them going up to the mountain means nothing, otherwise what are we to suppose of James and John being included here? Are they vice-popes? Will we need a new ecclesiology that matches this name order?

I appreciate your comments 3abdulmesii7, but I don't see anything in the Bible that implies Peter was the leader of the apostles and that his authority was passed down to others throughout Christian history. As a matter of fact, I see historically, that the bishop in Rome was considered to have no more authority than the bishop in Antioch, Ephesus, Jerusalem or any other place. It has only been through imposition that the bishop in Rome has seen himself as differentiated from any of the other elders that have been appointed by the original apostles and elders.

RC Apologetic

Roderick wrote:

"After the last apostle dies, there is no biblical precept to say that inspiration was to be passed on to anyone else. Also, there is no biblical precept that says the Church is "most going to need a charism of infallibility" after the death of the last apostle. As a matter of fact, if we did still have an inspired representative of the apostles today, I would suggest we follow that person instead of ever trying to interpret the Bible on our own. Since you appear to be an advocate of Papalism, I'd imagine this would be your point anyone -- that we should follow the Pope?"

Inspiration, no. I don't believe that any Catholic is divinely inspired. I believe that the Pope can, by virtue of his visible headship in the Church, infallibly interpret Scripture and Tradition under certain circumstances. Given that there are, at present, ~40 Reformed denominations, would you agree that if would be good for such a person to exist?

Roderick wrote:

"Actually Protestantism DOES posit such a thing, it is called The Word of God. The apostles were handpicked by Jesus (John 15:16) and guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13) for a purpose -- not just so that they could be the verbal mouthpieces of God, but so that they could bring about the closed canon of Scripture. (2 Thes 2:5) If the canon isn't closed and there is still an apostolic representative among us (eg. the Pope), then his words are just as worthy of been part of the Bible as the first 12 apostles."

The bible alone is not enough. There are, at present, 30,000 Protestant denominations, 40 of them Reformed, all of them confessing that only the Bible is binding on the conscience. Unless there are a number of them that preach exactly the same thing, 29,999 of them must preach some heresy. If God provided us with inerrant Scripture, he will have also have provided us with an infallible Church to interpret it in His mercy.

Roderick wrote:

"As a matter of fact, post AD70 and after the last apostle died, the Church was governed by a college of Bishops/elders which oversaw churches in various cities."

I have seen this asserted before; do you have some historical evidence for this? In the 1st century AD historical data is very scanty. Most diocese even now have more than one bishop, but one has authority over the others.

Roderick wrote:

"The authority of the "keys" was given not just to Peter but to all of the apostles as noted in several verses."

The phrase "keys to the kingdom of heaven" is only used when Jesus is talking to Peter and the "you" that He uses is singular. Now the apostles do recieve the authority to bind and loose in Mt 18:18-19, but after Peter does, and without the phrase "keys to the kingdom of heaven." (I'm just thinking on virtual paper here.) I myself cannot escape the conclusion that Peter is given some sort of paramount authority.

Papal infallibility does not constitute protection from sin. Paul is rebuking Peter for hypocrisy in Galatians, something that faithful Catholics can and should do to Popes under certain circumstances.

The sees of James and John do have special authority. The old patriarchates were Rome, Alexandria, Antioch (those three being most important due to their connection to Peter), Jerusalem (due to its connection with James), and Constantinople (as a matter of convenience). So the order of honor took into account the place of Peter and James. Of these, Rome is first because it is the city in which Peter (and Paul) died, and it was widely held that Peter had appointed his successor par excellence there.

Post-Scripture "guides for the Church"

Looking forward to your explanation of how the Apostles, handpicked by Jesus as an example of having some to be guides for the Church - help us determine WHO Jesus has handpicked as guides for the Church post 70 AD/post closed-canon of Scripture.

Still waiting....

Still waiting...

RE: Scripture & Structure

Thanks Roderick.  along these lines I highly recommend The Shape Of Sola Scriptura by Keith Mathison
 
His point is that in Bible teaching and interpretation we must not ignore the rest of the church as a whole. The Bible is our final authority, but it is not our only authority. The Holy Spirit has actively guided and worked in God’s people for the past 2,000 years. When the church of history has studied a matter and reached consensus on it, that becomes authoritative for us as well. Do we really have the right to dispute the theology of the church of the ages? As one church historian put it, "It is said that the Acts of the Apostles are more correctly described as the ‘Acts of the Holy Spirit’. But it is all church history which should be written under that title and be appreciated as such. Any Christian movement which neglects this story loses the dimension of the solidarity with Christ’s church in all ages. The slogan ‘Back to the New Testament!’ represents only part of the truth. ‘Onwards with the Spirit!’ is the other half of this truth; together they make up the authority of the Reformers — which was always that of ‘Word and Spirit’. It is the same Spirit who inspired the Bible who is alive in the church, creating the tradition and bringing afresh to every age the authority of the once-given Word."

Who has the authority to decide upon the correct interpretation of the Bible, a single church (i.e. Rome), the individual believer, or the universal church as a whole? At one extreme, Roman Catholics will declare that as an individual you are not supposed to interpret your Bible, but rather that you should accept what Rome declares it to mean. At the opposite extreme, though, many Evangelicals have replaced Rome with a new Pope in the form of each individual believer. "Just me and my Bible." Is this much different?

The original teachings of the apostles are preserved in the essential doctrines of the historic Christian faith. Jesus said that it was actually to our advantage that He went away, for in His place He sent the Holy Spirit to live in and guide us. Confidence in the Spirit’s ability to teach and direct God’s people makes us conclude that in the essentials of theology, the church of history has been taught of the Spirit When certain basic doctrines are agreed upon today by Christians from every conceivable background, and also by virtually all those who went before us in the faith, that should get our attention. That is authoritative. Some of these basics include a belief that the sixty-six books of the Bible do finally and completely comprise God’s written revelation to us, the doctrine of the Trinityi, the deity of Christ, the propitiatory nature of Jesus’ work on the cross, justificationi by grace through faith unto good works, the future bodily return of Jesus, the future tomb-emptying resurrection of the dead, and the future judgment.

The original Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura included the belief that whereas the Bible is our final authority, it is not our only authority. The church as a whole is also an authority (albeit a secondary one). As Paul wrote to Timothy, the church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1Ti 3:15). When the entire church arrives at the same conclusions regarding theology, that is authoritative. Teachings contrary to doctrine universally agreed upon by the church at large are not to be entertained.

The church of history has passed on to us various creeds and confessions. The word "creed" is from a Latin root that simply means, "I believe." Did you know that there is even a post-New Testament, church-made creed printed in your Bible? It is called the "Table of Contents." The books of the Bible were not finally compiled and settled upon until quite some time after the apostolic era. How can we trust the church of history to give us the right collection of books that are supposed to be in our Bibles and yet not also trust her to give us right theology about what that same Bible teaches? The main people who resist an acceptance of the basic creeds of the church are those who hold to aberrant theology, denying one or more of the essentials listed above.

Since they are not inspired, it should be acknowledged that the creeds and confessions of various churches are liable to error. That this is so is obvious from the fact that they differ from one another in places. However, what should get our attention all the more is when the creeds and confessions do line up in uncoerced agreement at various points. It is somewhat naive, arrogant even, to think that a new truth has been discovered that 99% of all others who have ever studied the Bible failed to see. We must cultivate an historical humility, a spirit of mutual submission with the church at large and with the church of ages past. Pastors, teachers, laymen, historians, catechists, and theologians all coming to the same conclusion regarding a basic theology is significant. Although church practice is beyond the scope of the creeds, it is important to consider that scholars from every denomination are in general agreement regarding such practices of the early church as house churches, participatory meetings, Lord’s Supper fellowship meals, non-hierarchical church leadership, and the support of qualified elders, itinerant evangelists and church planters.

Throw out the interpretations of the church as a whole, and you are left with individual subjectivism. Keith Mathison, throughout The Shape of Sola Scriptura, has aptly pointed out that modern American Evangelicalism has redefined sola scriptura in terms of secular Enlightenment rationalism and rugged democratic individualism. This modern reinterpretation grants autonomy to each individual believer’s reason and judgment. The result is the relativism, subjectivism, and theological chaos that we see in modern Evangelicalism today. Mathison points out that each of us comes to the Scripture with different presuppositions, blind spots, ignorance of important facts, and, most importantly, sinfulness. Since we are far from neutral, each of us reads things into Scripture that are really not there and also misses things that are there. Reason and conscience become the final interpreter. The universal and objective truth of Scripture is made virtually of no effect, because instead of the Church proclaiming with one voice what the Bible teaches, every individual interprets Scripture as seems right in his own eyes. The unbelieving world is left hearing a cacophony of conflicting voices rather than the Word of the living God. In the final analysis, each individual is responsible for establishing his own creed.

Faddish theological ideas will continue to sprout like weeds in a garden. Devilish doctrinal winds will always blow and toss the ungrounded to and fro. These challenges must be put into perspective. Which would you rather throw out the window, a recent novel theological position of very few people or the theological convictions of the universal Christian church of all ages? The choice is between the tried and proven faith of the collective body of God’s people and the private judgment of a few individual objectors. False teaching could be broadly defined as anything which falls outside of the historic orthodox faith as upheld by the general consensus of the Christian Church for the last two millennia.

The church as a whole has clearly spoken concerning the correct interpretation of the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith. To deny these is to deny the teachings of the Bible. Those who do not hold to sound orthodoxy are not to be allowed to teach their false doctrine (1Ti 1:3), and are not to be recognized as apostles, elders, teachers, or deacons (1Ti 3:9, Titus 1:9). Individual churches are not like little row boats out on Lake Placid. Instead, we will go through storms on the high seas. Challenges will come. Aberrant teaching will wash up on deck. It is not a matter of if, but when. In opposing heretical theology, elders and teachers must declare, like captains of war ships, "Repel all boarders!" We are to gently instruct those who oppose, "in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who had taken them captive to do his will" (2Ti 2:25-26).

Steve A