Stunned by Scripture. Dr. John S. Bergsma, Ph.D.

I was terribly mistaken. References to David and his kingdom actually continue through the Gospels and into Acts and occur elsewhere in the New Testament, especially in Revelation. The connection of Jesus to the fulfillment of the promises to the royal House of David is actually a major theme in the New Testament generally, but to grasp it we have to see that the Church is the fulfillment of the kingdom of David. That’s why Jesus promises the Twelve that they will “sit on thrones judging the tribes of Israel” (Luke 22:30). When do they do that? When they rule authoritatively over the Church in Acts (see Acts 5:1–11, for example). The Church is the “Israel of God” (Gal 6:16).

      The Catholic Church is the transformed kingdom of David. The Son of David, Christ the King, rules over it. On earth, the royal steward guides it, a priestly and paternal man, a man called “papa” or “pope” by the citizens of the kingdom. He can “bind and loose” by declaring what is in accord with divine law and what is prohibited by it. So, for example, when Paul VI judged in his encyclical Humanae Vitae that artificial contraceptives were prohibited by divine and natural law, it was an exercise of the power of “binding” given to Peter and his successors.

      The doctrine of papal infallibility is already implied in Matthew 16:19 when we read it in light of Jewish religious culture and through Jewish eyes. We have already seen that the Jewish Encyclopedia understands “binding and loosing” as an exercise of divine authority, ratified and sanctioned by “the celestial court of justice.” This is precisely what Jesus means by saying “what you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.” Heaven will confirm the decisions of Peter on earth; and surely this implies that heaven will first guide the decisions of Peter on earth, because heaven cannot confirm error. That implies infallibility.

      However, I did not come to affirm papal infallibility merely for scriptural reasons, although I did see that Scripture implied it. Rather, I came to accept papal infallibility when I saw its relationship to Church unity.

      Here is my line of logic. You can judge if I am faithful to Scripture in my thinking:

      1. Jesus desires visible unity of his Church.

      2. Visible unity requires, ultimately, one “senior pastor.”

      3. The job of the “senior pastor” is to maintain unity.

      4. He can only maintain unity by stopping fights.

      5. He can only stop fights if his word is final.

      6. His word is final only if he can make an infallible judgment.

      Did you follow that? Let me go through the steps with you, one by one.

       1. Jesus desires visible unity of his Church.

      Whether Catholic or Protestant, we Christians are not being honest with ourselves, church history, or the Scriptures if we deny this point.

      I became convicted of the need for the visible unity of the Church when I had to prepare a sermon on John 17, the famous “High Priestly Prayer.” In the part of this prayer where Jesus prays for the whole Church, he says:

      “I do not pray for these [i.e., the apostles] only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” (John 17:20–21, emphasis added)

      I knew that the usual Protestant interpretation of this passage was that Jesus was merely praying for spiritual unity, but my gut reaction to that, even as a Protestant, was “cop out!”

      I could not believe — and still cannot believe — that Jesus was praying for his followers to be divided into forty thousand different groups differing on every imaginable point of doctrine, as long as they were somehow “spiritually unified” in some airy-fairy way.

      I am especially convinced of this because it dawned on me — all those years ago when I was working on this text in the context of urban ministry — that there was a connection between unity and mission. Notice how the prayer that “they may all be one” is followed by the purpose clause “so that the world may believe.” Therefore, the unity of the Church lends credibility to the Gospel and helps the world “to believe” that Jesus has really been sent from God. But the world sees only the external. The world cannot see some airy-fairy “spiritual” unity behind forty thousand or more bickering denominations. The world needs to see visible unity in order to be moved to belief. That’s why the Reformation has crippled the evangelization of Western civilization, and it has been downhill for Christianity in the West ever since.

       2. Visible unity requires, ultimately, one “senior pastor.”

      Almost all churches recognize this in practice. As I mentioned above, dual pastorships are occasionally tried, but they never work long term. This is especially true in the most successful churches, like mega-churches built around the personality of one senior pastor: Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen. The buck has to stop with one man, otherwise the church will not stay moving in one direction. It will be split by different visions.

      Why can we recognize this principle on the local level, but not apply it to the universal level?

      I’ll tell you why. Because, as I’ve said, most Christians are not serious about Church unity. They may pay lip service to ecumenical efforts, but they are not going to budge one inch on the theological particulars of their tradition in order to come back to a unified Church.

      There’s no problem with the logic: if the local church needs a pastor for unity, the universal church needs a pastor for unity. The problem is that folks don’t like the conclusion.

      Is there any indication that Jesus appointed one “senior pastor” over his Church? Absolutely! We just need to read the Scriptures with an open mind!

      There is only one apostle whom Jesus names “the rock,” says that he will build his “church” on, and gives the “keys of the kingdom,” demonstrating that he has the role of the “royal steward” or second in command in the spiritual kingdom Jesus is establishing.

      There is only one apostle who is always listed first in all the lists of apostles in the Gospel.

      There is only one apostle who receives a triple commission to “feed and tend the sheep” in John 21, just before Jesus’ ascension. Since the word “pastor” literally means “shepherd,” and “senior” means “chief or primary,” we can say quite literally that Jesus appointed Peter as the “senior pastor” on the shores of Galilee after his resurrection (John 21).

      Folks may resist applying Peter’s role to his successors, but the royal steward in the Old Testament had an “office and station” (Isa 22:19), and the replacement of Judas by Matthias in Acts 1 also demonstrates that the apostles had an “office” and “station” (Acts 1:20). In fact, the word for Judas’s apostolic “office” is literally episkopen in Greek, from which we get the word “episcopal” and ultimately even “bishop.”⁶

      Peter ended his life crucified in Rome. The Roman Christians recognized his disciple Linus as his replacement; Linus in turn was replaced by Anacletus; and so on down to Pope Francis today. Jesus did not provide a “royal steward” only for the first thirty years of the Church’s existence.

       3. The job of the “senior pastor” is to maintain unity.

      Not his sole job, of course, but one of his most important responsibilities: certainly within a local church, and all the more so in the church universal. We see indications of Peter’s responsibility for unity in the Scriptures: Jesus prays that Peter’s faith will not fail, so that afterward he can “strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:32), i.e., the other apostles. Strengthening them would certainly include keeping them together. At the first Church council described in Acts 15, it is Peter whose speech ends debate (Acts 15:7–11). Notice there is much debate before Peter speaks (15:7) and none afterward (15:12–29). As a result, the early Church did not split into