Unity of Command ... not just a good idea, but biblically established

On the Does the Bible have errors in it? blog, Wray Davis wrote the following comment:

... the concept that God has selected a single man to be his ultimate voice after Christ ascended - I don't see any biblical reason to support such a belief.

Let me tell you why I believe the Bible supports sacerdotal unity, that is, the notion that God selected a single man to be his voice, to be the Vicar of Christ.

As a military guy, I know this priniciple as "unity of command." Unit cohesion and unity of purpose quickly fails without unity of command, especially in times of battle. And make no mistake, the Church has always been in battle with the forces that would attempt to destroy her.

The Catholic Church more appropriately calls this "sacerdotal unity." It essentially means that there will be one pastor in charge of the Church. It is not only a good idea for unit cohesion and unity of purpose in times of battle, but this pastoral or sacerdotal unity is precisely how Christ built his Church. Catholics see no biblical reason to presume that Christ's Church is no longer hierarchically under one pastor as it was in the 1st century.

There are many types within the OT that foreshadow truths expounded within the NT. For example, Paul calls Adam a "type" of Christ. This is called the typological sense of the OT. The Davidic Kingship, for example, is a type of Christ's Kingship, and the Davidic Kingdom foreshadows the Kingdom of God under the eternal King, Jesus Christ.

Let's look at some types that give us clues as to how Christ set up his kingdom on earth.

The family is the smallest unit established by God. It is led by one guy, the Father.

The extended family, for example that of Noah, was led by one patriarch, Noah.

The tribe is led by one guy, for example, the tribe of Abraham is led by Abraham.

The nation is led by one guy. A OT example is that of the nation of Israel, led by the one guy, Moses. It is interesting to note that when Korah attempted to rebel against this Divinely established construct, asserting that everyone in the nation was holy and that they ought to be able to go to God withing having to use Moses as mediator, God disagreed. You can read more about his rebellion in Numbers ch. 16.

The kingdom is led by one guy, the King. An OT example is that of King David. Now, let's take a closer look at this Davidic kingdom. The kindgom had many ministers. Yet, there was just one guy, the one who held the keys of the kingdom who was the chief minister, given the authority to speak on behalf of the king, to be the ONE GUY to lead all the other ministers, the PRIME MINISTER. Again, unity of command is presented as Scriptural in the governance of every unit, from those as small as the family to those as large as the kingdom, to even include the body of ministers for that kindgom, led by one guy, the chief minister.

Are these not OT types for the NT Kingdom? According to Catholicism and even many well-respected Protestant bible scholars, the answer is yes. Jesus placed one guy to be his chief apostle, giving him the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and loose on earth that which will be bound and loosed in heaven. Many Protestant scholars rightly conclude that Peter was the chief apostle of the NT Church. However, they fail to take the next step and draw the necessary conclusion as to how the universal Church ought to be governed--by one chief minister--the successor of Peter.

Protestant bible scholar F. F. Bruce, writes:

"And what about the 'keys of the kingdom' ? The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or majordomo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim ....(Isaiah 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about
to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward." (Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus [Intervarsity, 1983], 143-144, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page
41)

Protestant M. Eugene Boring (Disciples of Christ), commenting on the "keys of the kingdom of heaven," "binding" and "loosing" from Matthew 16:19:

"The 'kingdom of heaven' is represented by authoritative teaching, the
promulgation of authoritative Halakha that lets heaven's power rule in earthly things...Peter's role as holder of the keys is fulfilled now, on earth, as chief teacher of the church....The keeper of the keys has authority within the house as administrator and teacher (cf. Isa 22:20-25, which may have influenced Matthew here). The language of binding and loosing is rabbinic terminology for authoritative teaching, for having the authority to interpret the Torah and
apply it to particular cases, declaring what is permitted and what is not permitted. Jesus, who has taught with authority (7:29) and has given his authority to his disciples (10:1, 8), here gives the primary disciple [Peter] the authority to teach in his name -- to make authoritative decisions pertaining to Christian life as he applies the teaching of Jesus to concrete situations in the life of the church." (Boring in The New Interpreter's Bible [Abingdon Press, 1995], volume 8, page 346)

Protestant Francis Wright Beare (Presbyterian/Reformed):

"The 'keys' are probably not to be understood as entrance keys, as if to suggest that Peter is authorized to admit or to refuse admission, but rather to the bundle of keys carried by the chief steward, for the opening of rooms and storechambers within the house -- symbols of responsibilities to be exercised within the house of God (cf. Mt 24:45, etc.). 'Bind' and 'loose" are technical terms of the rabbinic vocabulary, denoting the authoritative declaration that an action or course of conduct is permitted or forbidden by the Law of Moses." (Beare in The Gospel According to Matthew [Harper and Row, 1981], page 355-356)

Protestant Eduard Schweizer (Presbyterian/Reformed) --

"In Jewish interpretation, the key of David refers to the teachers of the Law (exiled in Babylon); according to Matthew 23:13, the 'keys of the Kingdom of heaven' are in the hands of the teachers of the Law. A contrast is here drawn between them and Peter. He is thus not the gatekeeper of heaven, but the steward of the Kingdom of heaven upon earth. His function is described in more detail as 'binding and loosing' ....the saying must from the very outset have referred to an authority like that of the teachers of the Law. In this context, 'binding" and 'loosing' refer to the magisterium to declare a commandment binding or not binding....For Matthew, however, there is only one correct interpretation of the Law, that of Jesus. This is accessible to the community through the tradition of Peter...Probably we are dealing here mostly with teaching authority, and always with the understanding that God must ratify what Petrine tradition declares permitted or forbidden in the community." (Schweizer in The Good News according to Matthew [John Knox Press, 1975], page 343)

Protestant R.T. France (Anglican/Protestant Evangelical) --

"The terms [binding and loosing] thus refer to a teaching function, and more specifically one of making halakhic pronouncements [i.e. relative to laws not written down in the Jewish Scriptures but based on an oral interpretation of them] which are to be 'binding' on the people of God. In that case Peter's 'power of the keys' declared in [Matthew] 16:19 is not so much that of the doorkeeper... but that of the steward (as in Is. 22:22, generally regarded as the Old Testament background to the metaphor of keys here), whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household." (R.T. France, as cited in Jesus, Peter, and the Keys by Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 54)

Protestants William F. Albright and C.S. Mann, commenting on Matthew 16:19:

"Isaiah 22:15ff undoubtedly lies behind this saying. The keys are the symbol of authority, and Roland de Vaux [Ancient Israel, tr. by John McHugh, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1961] rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain, of the royal household in ancient Israel. Eliakim is described as having the same authority in Isaiah; it was Hilkiah's position until he was ousted, and Jotham as regent is also described as 'over the household' [2 Kings 15:5]....It is of considerable importance that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are being discussed [cf. Matt 18:18; John 20:23] the symbol of the keys is absent, since the sayings apply in those instances to a wider circle....The role of Peter as steward of the Kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority, as was the case of the OT chamberlain who held the 'keys.' The clauses 'on earth,' 'in heaven', have reference to the permanent character of the steward's work." (Albright/Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, page 196-197)

The Evangelical New Bible Commentary states on Isaiah 22:

"Eliakim stands in strong contrast to Shebna, over whom he seems to have been promoted when they reappear in 36:3...Godward he is called my servant (20)...manward he will be a father to his community (21)...The key...of David (22) comes in this context of accountability. A key was a substantial object, tucked in the girdle or slung over the shoulder; but the opening words of v. 22...emphasize the God-given responsibility that went with it, to be used in the king's interests. The 'shutting' and 'opening' means the power to make decisions which no one under the king could override. This is the background of the commission to Peter (cf. Mt 16:19) and to the church (cf. Mt 18:18).... Ultimate authority, however, is claimed, in these terms, for Christ himself (cf. Rev 3:7-8)." (NBC [Intervarsity, 1994], page 647)

Joachim Jeremias in an extended passage from Kittel's Greek standard:

"...the key of David is now (3:7) the key which Christ has in His hands as the promised shoot of David. This is the key to God's eternal palace. The meaning of the description is that Christ has unlimited sovereignty over the future world. He alone controls grace and judgment. He decides irrevocably whether a man will have access to the salvation of the last age or whether it will be witheld from him...Materially, then, the keys of the kingdom of God are not different from the key of David...This is confirmed by the fact that in Mt. 16:19, as in Rev. 3:7, Jesus is the One who controls them. But in what sense is the power of the keys given to Peter? ....the handing over of the keys is not just future. It is regarded as taking place now... There are numerous instances to show that in biblical and later Jewish usage handing over the keys implies full authorisation. He who has the keys has full authority. Thus, when Eliakim is given the keys of the palace he is appointed the royal steward (Is. 22:22, cf. 15). When Jesus is said to hold the keys of death and Hades (Rev. 1:18) or the key of David (3:7), this means that He is, not the doorkeeper, but the Lord of the world of the dead and the palace of God...Hence handing over the keys implies appointment to full authority. He who has the keys has on the one side control, e.g., over the council chamber or treasury, cf. Mt. 13:52, and on the other the power to allow or forbid entry, cf. Rev. 3:7...Mt. 23:13 leads us a step further. This passage is particularly important for an understanding of Mt. 16:19 because it is the only one in the NT which presupposes an image not found elsewhere, namely, that of the keys of the kingdom (royal dominion) of God...Mt. 23:13 shows us that the scribes of the time of Jesus claimed to possess the power of the keys in respect of this kingdom...They exercised this by declaring the will of God in Holy Scripture in the form of preaching, teaching and judging. Thereby they opened up for the congregation a way into this kingdom...by acting as spiritual leaders of the congregation....As Lord of the Messianic community He thus transferred the keys of God's royal dominion, i.e. the full authority of proclamation, to Peter...In Rabb. lit. binding and loosing are almost always used in respect of halahkic decisions...The scribe binds (declares to be forbidden) and looses (declares to be permitted)...In Mt. 16:19, then, we are to regard the authority to bind and to loose as judicial. It is the authority to pronounce judgment on unbelievers and to promise forgiveness to believers." (Jeremias from Kittel/Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, volume 3, page 748-751)

So from my study of Scripture and ancient Christianity, Christ did indeed place one guy in charge, his chief apostle or "steward of the Kingdom of heaven upon earth." Catholics understand this guy to have been Peter, and Catholics continue in union with the chair of Peter to this day. Such champions of orthodoxy as St. Athanasius and the other bishops at the synod of Sardica, writing a letter to the pope, described the See of Peter as the "head" of the Church. Later, the schismatic Greek Church would re-interpret this to mean something other than jurisdictional authority. Yet, the bishops of the ecumenical council of Chalcedon well before such re-interpretations affirmed in a letter to Pope Leo I, that they believe him to be the successor of Peter, given "custody of the vine by the Savior." They submitted the canons to him for ratification--a clear sign of jurisdicational primacy over the entire Church. Catholics have no reason to conclude this biblical ecclesiastical governance was in any way revised by Christ after Peter's death.

God bless,

Dave