"

In Matthew 16:18 Jesus said he would build a church, and in Matthew 18:20 he said that where two or three are gathered in his name, he would be there with them. So, obviously there is a spiritual dimension to his church. But the question remains: Is the church Jesus built only a spiritual entity, the invisible brotherhood of all believers, or is it also a visible organization?

 

When Jesus said he would establish a church, he said to his disciple Simon, “I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” We’ve discussed elsewhere the fact that Jesus was referring to Simon personally as the rock upon which he would build his church. (See my paper, “I Tell You That You Are Peter”). Jesus gave his church a visible foundation in the person of Simon. Not only that, but He said to him, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19).

 

The “key” to understanding the reference to the “keys of the kingdom” is found in the Old Testament. In the house of King David there were many servants. In order to prevent chaos if disputes should arise among them, one of the servants was given authority over the others. He was called the “chief steward” or “chamberlain.” In Isaiah 22, the Lord describes the authority of the chief steward, in this case Eliakim, son of Hilkiah:

 

He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open (Isaiah 22:21-22).

 

Does that sound familiar? It’s almost the same language that Jesus used when he established Simon as the rock upon which he would build his church:

 

Jesus appointed his servant Peter as “chief steward” over his church, just as Eliakim was the chief steward over David’s kingdom. Protestant author F. F. Bruce concurs with this assessment:

 

And what about the keys of the kingdom? The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or major domo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. … So in the new community which Jesus was to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward.¹

 

Just as Eliakim was “a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah,” Peter and his successors were to be like a father to Christians. That is why they have traditionally been called “pope,” a word derived from the Greek πάππας (páppas), meaning “father.”

 

So far, then, we’ve seen that Jesus gave his church a visible leader, Simon Peter. Moreover, Peter was also given the authority to “bind” and “loose.” Later, the other apostles were given a similar authority (see Matt. 18:18). What does this mean? According to Ralph Earle, Professor of New Testament at Nazarene Theological Seminary:

 

Even more striking [than the keys] is Jesus’ statement that whatever Peter bound on earth would be bound in heaven, and whatever he loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven. What is meant by bind and loose? M’Neile explains: “‘Bind’ and ‘loose’ appear to represent the Aramaic … technical terms for the verdict of a teacher of the Law who, on the strength of his expert knowledge of the oral tradition, declared some action or thing ‘bound’ i.e. forbidden, or ‘loosed’ i.e. permitted.” In other words, Peter would give decisions, based on the teachings of Jesus, which would be bound in heaven that is honored by God.²

 

The Intervarsity Press Commentary concurs:

 

That authority is exercised in binding and loosing which were technical terms for the pronouncement of rabbis on what was and was not permitted (to bind was to forbid, to loose to permit). This verse (Matthew 16:19) therefore probably refers primarily to a legislative authority in the church.³

 

This legislative authority, given to Simon and the other apostles, was important because Jesus taught that his church was to have the final authority in the life of the believer:

 

“If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector” (Matthew 18:15-17, emphasis added).

 

Likewise, Hebrews 13:17 says, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them …” 

 

So far, then, we’ve seen that the church Jesus founded was more than just an invisible communion of believers who were free to organize themselves however they saw fit. Christ gave his church a visible, authoritative hierarchy. It was a kingdom, not a democracy, and it was ruled by the apostles (and chief among them, Simon Peter) who were given the authority to make binding rules. 

 

We’ve also seen that believers were to submit their disputes to the judgment of the church, and to “listen to the church,” or else be regarded as pagans and tax collectors. This authority extended, not just to personal disputes, but also to doctrinal disputes. An example of this is found in Acts 15, where the Bible tells us:

 

Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them (Acts 15:1-2).

 

Obviously, one side or the other here was teaching a false doctrine. The way the Church resolved this dispute is instructive. They didn’t conduct a Bible study, or rely on the individual guidance of the Holy Spirit. Instead,

 

Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question (Acts 15:3).

 

In other words, the matter was referred to the visible church hierarchy in Jerusalem for a ruling. The apostles and elders held a council at Jerusalem to discuss this issue, and their deliberations are described in Acts 15:4-29. They decided that it was contrary to the faith to insist that Gentiles be circumcised. Instead, they issued a command: “You are to abstain …” (Acts 15:29). Once the council reached its decision, the debate was over. From that point on, it was outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy to require Gentile converts to be circumcised, and that decision was binding on all Christians everywhere:

 

As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey (Acts 16:4, emphasis added.).

 

There was no room for individual judgment here. The hierarchy had ruled, and the people were expected to obey.

 

These visible leaders held an authoritative office that did not die with them, but was handed on to successors. The Bible itself demonstrates this in the case of Judas, the first of the twelve apostles to die:

 

In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said [regarding Judas] … “For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘His office let another take.’ Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles (Acts 1:15,20-26 ).

 

The casting of lots here is significant, for it was not just the first-century equivalent of tossing a coin. The casting of lots was the Judaic tradition by which a priestly office was filled, as the Bible indicates:

 

They organized them by lot, all alike, for there were officers of the sanctuary and officers of God among both the sons of Eleazar and the sons of Ithamar (1 Chronicles 24:5).

 

And they cast lots for their duties, small and great, teacher and pupil alike (1 Chronicles 25:8).

 

These also, the head of each father’s house and his younger brother alike, cast lots, just as their brethren the sons of Aaron, in the presence of King David, Zadok, Ahimelech, and the heads of fathers’ houses of the priests and of the Levites (1 Chronicles 24:31).

 

Peter and the other apostles were Jews, of course, so they were well acquainted with the Judaic method of filling a priestly office. Moreover, Simon Peter, the first among the apostles, had the authority to decide what conditions were necessary for the consecration of one who would “take an office” in the new Christian church. 

 

He decided (perhaps having been so instructed by Jesus during the 40 days mentioned in Acts 1:3) that when an apostle died, a successor would be chosen to “take his office.” We cannot simply dismiss that and say, “Well, that was Peter’s opinion, but it’s not binding on us,” because Jesus specifically told Peter that whatever he bound on earth would be bound in heaven, and we’ve already seen (from Protestant sources no less) that this referred to the authority to establish binding rules and legislation in the Church. 

 

The Bible shows us how the apostles ordained their successors. Normally, an apostle would establish a local church, live with it and instruct it, sometimes for years, then ordain overseers (bishops) and elders (priests), and move on. For example, Acts 18:11 tells us that Paul lived in Corinth for “a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.” Acts 14:23 says, “Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.” 

 

We know from Acts 20:31 that Paul spent three years in Ephesus. Some months later, he summoned the Ephesian elders, whom he had ordained, to Miletus and he said to them, “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28).

 

We see the same pattern carried into the immediate post-apostolic period, as we would expect. Clement, the fourth bishop of Rome, wrote,

 

Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.⁴

 

Ignatius of Antioch, thought by many to have been a disciple of the apostle John, clearly described the visible nature of the church’s organization and leadership:

 

Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore—and such is your practice—that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in him. It is necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries [sacraments] of Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men. For they are not the deacons of food and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They must therefore guard against blame as against fire.⁵

 

In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him.⁶

 

In the immediate post-apostolic era, as sects and heresies rose up, the apostolic succession alone determined the legitimacy of any supposedly Christian church. So when the Gnostics came along saying that they alone had some hidden, higher knowledge that was necessary for salvation, Irenaeus (who was a disciple of one of John’s disciples) wrote,

 

It is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers … The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere.⁷

 

Ignatius of Antioch, thought by many to hvae been a disciple of the apostle John, called this church the “Catholic church.” He wrote, “Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”⁸ Early Church historian J.N.D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes:

 

As regards [the name] “Catholic” … in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). … What these early fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church.⁹

 

As the history of the last few centuries has demonstrated, it was necessary for Jesus to establish a visible, authoritative, hierarchical church in order to fulfill his desire that his followers maintain unity. The Bible says, “I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought” (1 Corinthians 1:10). 

 

Unity was so important that believers were warned to “note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them” (Romans 16:17, NKJV). In Galatians 5:19-21, Paul even warns the Galatians that those who cause “dissensions” [Greek: dichostasiai—“a standing apart; a division; dissension”], and “factions” [Greek: haireseis—“a religious sect, faction”], “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” 

 

Why was unity so important? Jesus himself gives the answer in his prayer in John 17:

 

“I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me” (John 17:22-23).

 

The unity of Christians was intended to give evidence to the world that Jesus is who he claimed to be. This unity must necessarily be a visible unity, because the world can’t see an invisible “unity” that exists only the hearts of “true believers,” especially if that “unity” is belied by the scattering of those believers into dozens of sects. 

 

So, although all believers in Jesus are in some way united to his church, the church itself is a visible organization. It is still led by bishops who can trace their succession back to the apostles; it is still led by the successor to Peter, the “chief steward” over the house of God; and it is still “the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15), “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Ephesians 2:19-20).