Any discussion of the biblical evidence for the papacy must begin at Matthew 16:17-19; there's simply no other way.

Here's the context. Jesus took His apostles to Caesarea Philippi and asked them who people said He was. They said that some believed Him to be John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or another one of the prophets. He then asked them who they thought He was, and Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

"And Jesus answered him, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 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.'" - Matthew 16:17-19

We see that the context suddenly changes from Jesus' identity to a list of statements made to Peter. In this list, Catholics recognize that Jesus is promising to ordain Peter as the pope, the head of the Church. Let's go through each statement and see what significance they have for this discussion.

I. "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven."

This statement doesn't have any significance by itself. Okay, Simon is blessed and received a revelation from God, but that doesn't mean that he's the pope. What it does do is set the stage for the other statements and establish the context. Jesus is talking about Peter, and the rest of the statements will have Peter as their subject. This is important, and it has a direct relevance to the next statement.

II. "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it."

The first thing to notice here is that Jesus changes Simon's name to Peter. In the Old Testament, name changes signified importance. Abram was changed to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, and Jacob to Israel; to this list we can add Simon to Peter. Granted, the change in name doesn't indicate the papacy in and of itself, but it does show that there was something special about Peter that the other apostles didn't have.

Some might object that Saul also had his name changed (to Paul), so Peter wasn't so special. However, the parallel falls apart once we examine how Saul had his name changed. We hear of it in Acts 13:9, which says, ""But Saul, also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him," and from then on, he is always called Paul. His name was not changed by God, so the change from Simon to Peter remains unique among the apostles.

The second thing to notice is that Jesus promised to build His Church on Peter. The name "Peter" means rock, so the play on words ("You are Rock, and on this rock I will build my Church") is obvious. This is where we meet the common "petros/petra" argument. In Greek, the word for "Peter" is "petros," which Protestants say means a small rock, but the word for "rock" is "petra," which they say means a large rock, so they conclude that the rock of Matthew 16:18 was either Jesus or Peter's faith, but not Peter himself. There are four responses to this argument.

1) The Greek words "petra" and "petros" did have different meanings before the first century, but by the time Matthew wrote his Gospel, they had become synonyms. Had Matthew wanted to make the distinction between Peter and the rock, he could have used the word "lithos," which means "stone."

2) In Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, the words for "Peter" and "rock" were probably both "kepha," which does away with any supposed distinction in the Greek. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders it, "You are kipho, and on this kipho�" which supports the idea that Jesus, who spoke Eastern Aramaic, used "kepha" both times.

Given that "petros" and "petra" mean the same thing and that the Aramaic words were the same, why did Matthew use two different words?

In order to form a personal name for a man in the Greek language from the Aramaic, one would have to change the feminine name for rock, petra, into a masculine personal name for rock, or petros.¹

3) Remember what I said before about the context? This is where it becomes important. Jesus was talking exclusively to Peter, and all his statements were praises and honors given to Peter. The Protestant distinction between Peter and the rock would be totally out of place in this context. This is what Protestants would have Jesus saying:

"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and I will build my church on something other than you, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 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."

This version of the statement about the rock does not fit the context, so it's obviously not what Jesus said.

4) Jesus said, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church," not, "You are Peter, but on this rock I will build my church." By saying "and," Jesus was connecting Peter and the rock, implying that they were the same.

Given all this, it seems pretty obvious that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, which means that Peter had to have been its leader or head.

III. "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,"

In ancient societies, keys were symbols of power (Isaiah 22:22, Revelation 1:18), a tradition that continues today when a mayor gives a respected citizen a "key to the city." By giving Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, Jesus was giving him authority over the Church (which is the kingdom of God on earth). It is interesting to note, however, that only Peter received the keys. While the other apostles received the power to bind and loose in Matthew 18:18, Peter was the one with the keys, which means that only he had that special authority conferred upon him in Matthew 16:19.

"I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open." - Isaiah 22:22

This verse, in addition to showing that keys symbolized authority, provides important background for Matthew 16:19. Here, God is saying that He will remove Shebna from his office as prime minister of Israel and put Eliakim in his place. The prime minister was the highest official in the royal house of Israel after the king and had almost total authority (subordinate only to the king), which makes for a striking parallel between Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:19. Jesus was the successor to the throne of David, which would make Peter the prime minister of His kingdom, the Church. Jesus has total power over the Church, and Peter's authority was second only to Jesus'. In Isaiah 22:22 God promises to make Eliakim prime minister, and in Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus promises to make Peter head of the Church. Eliakim is given the key of the house of David, and Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Eliakim received the power to open and shut (and nobody could reverse it), and Peter received the power to bind and loose (and it would be bound or loosed in heaven). Since Jesus will always remain king, He, unlike the kings of Israel, won't need a successor. Peter, on the other hand, didn't live forever, so he, like the prime ministers of Israel, needed successors.

Given the parallels between Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:19, it's reasonable to conclude that the prime minister of Israel was a type (foreshadowing) of the pope and that Isaiah 22:22 foreshadows Matthew 16:19. The connection shows that Peter and his successors are subordinate in authority only to Jesus Himself.

IV. "And whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

The terms "bind" and "loose" were rabbinical technical terms that were used when a teacher of the Law declared something either forbidden (bound) or allowed (loosed). Whatever Peter bound or loosed was bound or loosed in heaven, which means that God would always endorse his decisions. We know that God does not lie (Titus 1:2), so we can be assured that whatever He endorses is truth. It follows, then, that whatever Peter bound or loosed was truth, which means that his official teachings were infallible.

Many Protestants object that since all the other apostles received the power to bind and loose in Matthew 18:18, Peter was nothing special. The problem with this is that while the apostles as a whole received this power in Mathew 18:18, Peter was the only one who received it by himself and could exercise it independently of the other apostles. It would have been superfluous for Jesus to give Peter the power to bind and loose in Matthew 16, only to give it to him again in Matthew 18.

"These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon, also known as Peter, and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax-collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him." - Matthew 10:2-4

Every time the apostles are all listed in Scripture, Peter is always listed first, and Judas is always listed last (Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13). Sometimes, they are just called "Peter and the apostles" (Acts 2:37, 5:29), and Mathew even goes so far as to call Peter "first" (Greek: protos), a word that is used elsewhere to mean "chief" (2 Chronicles 26:20, Matthew 20:27).

"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you [Greek: plural], that he might sift you [Greek: plural] like wheat, but I have prayed for you [Greek: singular] that your [Greek: singular] faith may not fail; and when you [Greek: singular] have turned again, strengthen your [Greek: singular] brethren." - Luke 22:31-32 (Revised Standard Version)

Here, Jesus says that Satan will sift through all the apostles, but He only prayed for Peter, not for any of the other apostles. Only Peter was to strengthen the other apostles, but nobody was to strengthen Peter. While this passage does not prove the papacy, it definitely supports it. After the shock of the crucifixion, Peter would assume the role of leader, and the other apostles would turn to him, the rock, for strength and support.

"When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.' Jesus said to him, 'Feed my lambs.' A second time he said to him, 'Simon son of John, do you love me?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.' Jesus said to him, 'Tend my sheep.' He said to him the third time, 'Simon son of John, do you love me?' Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, 'Do you love me?' And he said to him, 'Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.' Jesus said to him, 'Feed my sheep." - John 21:15-17

Here, Jesus uses the image of a shepherd to tell Peter to care for His people, the Church. In the ancient world, the image of a shepherd was commonly used to denote a ruler (2 Samuel 5:2, Isaiah 40:9-11, Ezekiel 34:23-24, John 10:11-16), so there's no doubt that Jesus was installing Peter as a ruler. The point of contention between Catholic and Protestants is whether Jesus was installing Peter as the supreme ruler or just re-installing him as an apostle after his threefold denial of Jesus. We must remember, however, that John's Gospel was written towards the end of the first century, about 25-30 years after Peter's death. John had had time to think about Jesus' words, reflect on them, and consider the beliefs and practices of the early Church in light of them. Consequently, if Peter was "just another apostle," there would have been no reason for John to record this incident; everybody already knew that Peter didn't lose his apostleship. Thus, there had to have been a good reason for him to record this event, and the most plausible reason is that Peter was the first pope.

Up until now, we have considered Jesus' promises to Peter regarding His leadership in the Church. In the first half of Acts, these promises become a reality, and Peter's leadership takes shape as he acts as leader of the Church again and again.

In Acts 1:15, Peter spoke and began the process of choosing a replacement for Judas. On Pentecost, after the disciples received the Holy Spirit, Peter was the one who stood up and preached the Gospel to the crowd (Acts 2:14). When Peter and John went to Solomon's Portico in Acts 3:11-12, Peter spoke to the crowds, and when the Jews arrested them, Peter again spoke for both of them (Acts 4:8). In Acts 10:5, an angel told Cornelius, whose family would eventually become the first Gentile Christians, to seek out Peter. In Galatians 1:18, Paul says that he went to Jerusalem and saw Peter and James, but he went specifically to see Peter.

In verse 18 Paul explains that he went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter. The verb used is historesai which in this case can be best understood if we begin with its cognate noun form histor. The histor in ancient Greece functioned as examiner and arbiter in legal matters. He was learned in the law and skilled in examining witnesses. He knew how to ask the right questions of people who were being examined in order to ascertain the truth in matters of dispute. The truth he was after was not philosophical truth in some abstract metaphysical sense, but rather the kind of truth that can issue in practical wisdom. In the final analysis the histor would be called upon to make a judgment. The histor was a judge."²

In Acts 15 there was a council to determine whether or not the Gentiles had to follow the Law of Moses, and Peter gave the authoritative decision, but we will examine this event further in the next section.

We can see that Peter he acted as the leader and spokesman of the apostles, and this will become even more evident when we look at the Council of Jerusalem in the next section. In the second half of Acts, Luke focuses on Paul's missionary journeys and the expansion of the early Church, so Paul becomes the central figure. However, this doesn't mean that Peter faded into the background and was eclipsed by Paul. Rather, since Paul was the main missionary of the early Church, it's only natural that Acts, which focuses on the growth of the early Church, would concentrate on Paul rather than Peter.

When some Pharisaical Jewish Christians started teaching the Gentile Christians that they had to follow the Law of Moses, the apostles and elders of the Church were called to discuss the issue in Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-6). They debated for a while, and after they finished, Peter stood up and gave his authoritative decision that the Gentiles did not have to follow the Law of Moses (Acts 15:7-11). After Peter spoke, there was no more debate. Paul and Barnabas related all that God had done through them for the Gentiles (Acts 15:12), and then James backed up Peter and gave his opinion (Acts 15:13-21).

This clearly shows that Peter was regarded as the head of the apostles, the highest authority in the Church. He gave his decision after the debate was over, and nobody contested it. Some, however, argue that James had the last word and that he made the decision, which shows that Peter was not the highest authority. There are two main verses that they use to prove this: Acts 15:13 and 19.

"After they finished speaking, James replied, 'My brothers, listen to me.'" - Acts 15:13

The word for "listen" here is in the imperative mood, which is used to issue commands. Because of this, some have argued that James must be commanding those present to listen to his decision, which implies that he was the highest authority at the council, even higher than Peter. However, the imperative mood isn't always used to indicate a command to a subordinate.

The imperative mood of akouoo can be used for ANY desire of one person seeking the attention of another. It can be used, for example, in a simple request such as, "Listen, did you hear that noise?" Or, it can be used in a stronger context such as: "Listen, do not do that again." It can even be used of a subordinate who issues a request to a superior such as: "Listen, sir, to how I will do your bidding." These different senses of the imperative mood are used throughout the New Testament (e.g., Acts 22:1 ('fathers, listen to my defense'); James 2:5 ('hear me, my beloved brothers'); Matt. 15:10 ('hear and understand')�Hence, James' use of the imperative mood in Acts 15:14 does not necessarily mean that James is speaking from a supreme authoritative position; rather, it is the perfectly normal means of speech one would employ to summon the attention of his hearers.³

"Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God" - Acts 15:19

In this verse, the phrase "I have reached the decision" has lead some to conclude that James, not Peter, had the last word and made the final decision. However, the Greek verb used, "krino," can also be used to denote one's opinion (Acts 13:46, 16:15, 26:8), so James didn't necessarily make the final decision. In fact, it's more likely than not that James was just giving his opinion because Peter spoke authoritatively after the debate was over. James was just giving his own opinion and backing him up, just as Paul and Barnabas backed him up.

"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, 'If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?'" - Galatians 2:11-14

Some have argued that by rebuking him, Paul showed that Peter was neither infallible nor the head of the Church. Had Peter been infallible, Paul wouldn't have needed to correct him. However, this shows a misunderstanding of papal infallibility.

For a pope's teaching to be infallible, a few conditions must be met:

1) He must be teaching in his official capacity as pope, not merely as a theologian.

2) He must be teaching a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.

3) It must be binding on the conscience of every Catholic. That is, he must intend it to be an infallible teaching rather than his personal opinion.

With this in mind, we can see that Peter's error did not fall under the definition of papal infallibility. Paul rebuked him for a personal practice, not an official teaching. In fact, this incident actually supports Peter's primacy. Paul says that Peter influenced the Jews in Antioch to stop eating with the Gentiles; even Barnabas was led astray! For Peter's conduct to be that influential among the early Christians, he must have been exceptionally important.

Endnotes

1) Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess, Jesus, Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy

2) William R. Farmer and Roch Kereszty, Peter and Paul in the Church of Rome

3) Robert Sungenis, "James's Use of the Imperative Mood in Acts 15:14," letter to authors, in Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess, Jesus, Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy

Back