Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that the pope is the successor of Peter (the first pope); they both believe that he had some sort of prominence among the apostles. They disagree, however, on just how prominent Peter was. Catholics say he was the head of the church and that he had a special gift of infallibility, while Orthodox Christians say that he was just the "first among equals" (the equals are all the bishops of the world). Protestants take the Orthodox thinking one step further by saying that Peter had NO prominence among the apostles and that there is NO "successor of Peter." Here, I will try to show that Peter WAS prominent among the apostles, that he WAS the leader of the church, and that he DID have a special gift of infallibility.
In Mat 16:18-19, Jesus says to peter, "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 lose on earth will be loosed in heaven." This passage has traditionally been viewed by Catholics to mean that Jesus was building His church on Peter the rock, and that Jesus was giving Peter the gift of Papal infallibility. Many Protestants claim that Jesus was not building His church on Peter (whose name means rock), but that He was building it on Peter's faith or even Himself. Personally, I think this is just trying to explain away the passage; the play on words here is obvious. If I renamed someone asparagus and said, "You are asparagus, and I will cook this asparagus," would it be logical to think that I was talking about some asparagus other than the person I renamed? Of course not! Protestants will counter by saying that the Greek word for Peter (petros) means a small rock, but the Greek word for rock (petra) means a big rock; so verse 18 in Greek reads, "You are petros, and on this petra I will build My church." What Protestants fail to realize, however, is that petros and petra had become synonyms by the first century, with lithos being a small rock. Also, Jesus and His apostles spoke Aramaic, and many bible scholars think the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic. The word for Aramaic that would've been used is "kepha" (for both "Peter" and "rock"), so the verse in Aramaic reads, "You are kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church." Jesus was obviously building His church on Peter!
In verse 19, Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. What could these keys have meant? What did they symbolize? In the ancient world, keys were a symbol of complete authority over a household, city, etc. Cities had gates that were opened by actual keys, and the holder of these had authority over the city. Peter is the only one who received the keys to the kingdom of heaven. But wait, there's more. Mat 16:19 has an Old Testament Parallel in Isaiah 22:22: "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." Here, God is saying, through Isaiah, that He will give to Eliakim the position of prime minister (the highest position in the land, after king). He is using the metaphor of keys to denote power. This verse is echoed in Mat 16:19 where Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. The position of stweard over the house was passed on from generation to generation, and so is the position of pope. By giving Peter the keys to the kingdom of heave, He was giving authority (infallibility) to Peter and his successors.
Thirdly, Jesus gives Peter the power to bind and loose. In Mat 18:18, Jesus gives this power to all the apostles, but Peter gets it before them, BY HIMSELF. What is this power? The power to bind and loose was the rabbinical power of exorcism, legistaltion, discipline, and excommunication. The Church as a whole also has this power (Matthew 18:18), but Peter has it by himself, independent of the rest of the Church.
Lastly, we must consider why Peter had his name changed (from Simon to Peter). In the bible, name changes by God were significant: Abram to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, and Jacob to Israel; these were important figures in the Old Testament. Peter is the only one to have his name changed by God in the New Testament. Not even Paul had his name changed by God; the first time he is called Paul is in Acts 13:9, where it says, "But Saul, also called Paul�" After that, Saul is always called Paul. By changing Simon's name to Peter, Jesus was signifying that Peter was to be important.
In the Gospels, Peter is singled out among the apostles as their leader in three specific passages: Mat 16:18-19 (which I talked about in the last section), Luke 22:31-32, and John 21:15-17.
In Luke 22:31-32, Jesus says, "Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded to sift through all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers." Notice that Jesus prays SPECIFICALLY so that Peter's faith may not fail; He does not pray for anybody else, only Peter. Also, Peter is told to strengthen his brothers. He is the ONLY one who is told to do so. What do leaders do? They strengthen their brothers. What did Peter do? He strengthened his brethren.
In John 21:15-17, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Him more than the other apostles, and when Peter replies yes, Jesus tells him to, "Feed my lambs," "Tend my sheep," and "Feed my sheep." I think it's reasonable to agree that Jesus asked Peter three times to make up for his three denials. It is also reasonable to assume that Jesus asked Peter if he loved Him more than the other apostles because Peter was the only one who denied Jesus. When Jesus tells Peter to feed His sheep, tend His lambs, and feed His lambs, this is going too far if Jesus just wants Peter to make up for denying Him. But wait. Does Jesus JUST want Peter to make up for denying Him three times, or does He have another motive? Jesus SINGLED OUT PETER to feed and tend His sheep. Does this sound like Peter is "first among equals"? Does this sound like Peter was "just another apostle"? No. There is no way around it. There is no petra/petros argument. It's plain and simple: Jesus chose Peter to be the head of the church.
When reading the first half of Acts, one thing immediately jumps out at the reader: Peter. Whenever Peter is named with another apostle, he is named first (ex Acts 3:1, 3:11, 4:13), and in Acts 1:13, when the 11 apostles (before Matthias was chosen to replace Judas) are named, Peter is listed first. Now, this may seem trivial, but if you look at where the apostles are all named in the Gospels (Mat 10:2-4, Mk 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16), you will notice that not only is Peter always listed first, but Judas is always listed last. Matthew even calls Peter "first." Also, when the apostles are mentioned in Acts, many times they are mentioned as "Peter and the apostles" (ex Acts 2:37, 5:29).
Peter acted like the leader and spokesman of the apostles. In Acts 1:15, Peter stands up before a crowd of about 120 people and makes a speech telling them that they have to pick a replacement for Judas. After the descent of the Holy Spirit in the upper room, Peter is the one who addresses the crowd (Acts 2:14), and he is the one who tells the first converts to "repent and be baptized" (Acts 2:38). Peter is the one who addresses the people in Solomon's Portico (Acts 3:12) when they are astonished at a miracle he performed (Acts 3:6). He is "filled with the Holy Spirit" as he talks to the Jewish scribes and elders after they arrest him and John for preaching that Jesus is the Messiah (Acts 4:8). In Acts 5:1-11, Peter's words resulted in death for those who were dishonest in selling their land. In Acts 5:15, people carried their sick out into the streets so that Peter's SHADOW might fall on them and heal them. In Acts 10:5-6, an angel of God commands Cornelius, a Gentile, to seek out Peter for instruction in the Christian faith. In acts 11:1-18, Peter tells the Jewish Christians that God has accepted the Gentiles, and they all believe.
Now, let's take a look at the Council of Jerusalem. At first there was "much debate" (Acts 15:7), but then Peter spoke, and "the whole assembly kept silence" (Acts 15:12). Now, right away we can see that Peter has a certain authority. After the whole council had debated the issue, who stood up? Peter. If Peter was equal to the other apostles, why did he stand up AFTER they had debated the issue? Notice, also, that he refers not to Scripture, but to his own God-given authority as "the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers." Paul and Barnabas then spoke of their work among the Gentiles, and then James spoke. Many Protestants will point out that James had the last word, and therefore he had the primacy, not Peter. When reading James' words, notice that he refers to Peter's authority ("Simeon has related..." verse 14). He then quotes Scripture which agrees with what Peter said, and then makes his decision that the Gentiles don't have to follow the Law of Moses. Now, why did James make the decision and not Peter? When James spoke, he was merely affirming Peter's decision; he even referred to Peter's authority. Now, James was the bishop of Jerusalem, so he would naturally have a prominent place at the council, but he in no way takes away from Peter's authority.
Was Peter "just another apostle" or a mere "first among equals"? Was he the head of the church on earth with a special primacy? I have given the biblical evidence for the Catholic belief, and now it is up to YOU to decide what to believe. I would like to end with a quote from Iranaeus, bishop of Lyons, writing in 189 AD:
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2).
