Biblical study on the figure and office of Peter in the New Testament

You Are “Peter”

In God’s plan, a person’s name carries great weight, especially the name of God (see Deut 5:11; Ex 3:14, “I Am”; Is 43:1; and Rev 3:5).

Scripture shows us something significant: whenever God changes a person’s name, it is never by chance but for a reason. The new name corresponds to that person’s new IDENTITY, FUNCTION AND/OR MINISTRY.

In the OT we find examples of this idea that the name matches the person’s new identity; in this way God prepared us to understand what his Son Jesus would do.

In the case of Abram, God changed his name to ABRAHAM (Gen 17:5). The name Abraham means “father of nations.” Is it true that Abraham is the father of nations? Yes, because God promised him that he would be: I have made thee a father of many nations (Gen 17:5). So we see that his new name corresponds to his new ministry and identity.

In the same book of Genesis we also see that Sarai received the name SARAH, which means “princess.” Once again the change of name corresponds to a new identity within royalty. Sarah was to be the mother of kings (Gen 17:16).

God changed Jacob’s name to ISRAEL because he had striven with God and with men, and had prevailed (Gen 32:28).

We read in Isaiah 62:4 that God’s entire people received a new name: You shall no longer be called Forsaken, nor shall your land any longer be called Desolate; but you shall be called Hephzibah, and your land Beulah; for the love of the Lord shall be upon you, and your land shall be your God.(1) Here it is a matter of a new relationship with God that would give the people a new identity. This change of name would also affect their standing in the political world. (We have another example in 2 Kings 23:34.)

As we can see, the new name reflects the person’s identity. The same happens in the NT. In Mt 1:21 the angel says to Mary: And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name JESUS (2). For he shall save his people. The name the angel gives corresponds to his identity and ministry: Jesus saves.

Another example is: And they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us (Mt 1:23). It is clear that Jesus is God-with-us.

We see that in God’s plan, when he changes a person’s name, that name corresponds to his ministry and identity. Jesus follows his Father’s way.

In the Bible (Reina-Valera), in Jn 1:42 Jesus said to Simon: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter, notice that Cephas and Peter mean the same thing. Now, brother, look at the footnote in your Bible attached to the numbers that go with “Peter” and “Cephas” in the text; it reads: “1, 2 From the word stone in Aramaic and in Greek, respectively.” So Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter, and Peter means stone in Greek. Now let us examine Mt 16:13-19 to grasp the will of Jesus Christ. First we see Peter answer Jesus’ question about his identity. Whom do men say that the Son of man is? It is a question of identity, and Peter answers it. Thou art Christ. Then Jesus, using the same words “THOU ART,” also addresses Simon’s identity: And I say to thee: That thou art Peter (Mt 16:18). Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter, and let us recall what happens when God changes a person’s name: it corresponds to his new identity. We saw in Jn 1:42 (in the footnote) that “Peter” means STONE. Why, then, did he change his name to Peter? Because it matches his new identity as “stone.” If not, why change his name at all? When he answered me, a Baptist pastor told me that Jesus gave Peter another name because he changed his life; but Jesus did not change the names of the other Apostles, and they changed their lives too, since he told them they would be fishers of men (Mk 1:17). (Besides, “Stone” is not a name, it is a thing.) Jesus changed his name because Peter would be the Stone/Rock on which Jesus would build his Church. Here the correspondence between a person’s name and function is clearly indicated.

It is notable that in Jn 1:42, when Jesus calls Simon, he does so while gazing at him. The word in Spanish does not capture what the Greek says. Jesus fixes his eyes on Peter. John uses the word INTUITUS, not ASPEXIT or VIDIT. That is, to look deeply with a penetrating gaze. Jesus was saying something extremely serious, and his gaze pierced Peter’s soul.

There are Christians who do not accept that Peter is the rock. In the book by William Soto Santiago we read that the rock is “the revelation of Who the incarnate Word is,” which Peter confessed.(3)

But then we ask them: why did Jesus change his name? These people argue that the Greek presents two different words: Thou art Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build my Church. They say that petros is a small stone, distinct from petra, which is a large rock. Therefore Peter cannot be the stone of the Church. Jesus is the stone, as it says in 1 Pet 2:4.

But this argument is mistaken. All the Bible scholars say that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not in Greek, and in that language no such distinction exists. In Aramaic Jesus would have said: “Thou art Kepha/Cephas, and upon this Kepha/Cephas I will build my Church.” The first Apostolic Father to speak of this Gospel is the bishop Papias, and he testifies that the Gospel was written in Aramaic.(4)

When Matthew was translated into Greek, they did not want to render CEPHAS as a feminine noun. Instead of saying PETRA (“stone”), the name was made masculine: PETROS (a masculine form of “stone”). In French the same feminine word “pierre” (stone) is used for the name “Pierre” (Peter).(5)

An evangelical Bible commentary states: “Peter (pétros) [sic] is the Greek noun meaning ‘stone.’ Its Aramaic equivalent is ‘cephas.’ … Some hold that the wordplay is significant: Thou art Peter (pétros), which means a small stone, and upon this rock (pétra) I will build my church. Pétros is masculine and is used when referring to a man, whereas pétra is feminine and refers to a large rock. Nevertheless, we must remember that Jesus taught in Aramaic, and in that language there is no such difference between the terms for stone and rock.”(6)

In New Testament Greek there are two options for the word stone: PETRA and LITHOS, just as in Spanish: “piedra” (stone) and “roca” (rock). Turning to the original Greek of the Reina-Valera presented in C. P. Denyer’s book, we see that at times PETRA — which the Reina-Valera renders as “Rock” in Mt 16:18 — is also used for a small rock, as in 1 Pet 2:8 and Rom 9:32-33. In those texts PETRA is a little rock that can make someone stumble.

Continuing with the argument that the Bible uses the two words for large and small rocks, we see that Jesus is called LITHOS (1 Pet 2:4), yet this same word is also used for a small stone, such as the one they were going to throw at the adulterous woman (Jn 8:7) or at Jesus (Jn 8:59). In 1 Peter 2:8 and 1 Cor 10:4 we find both words, PETRA and LITHOS, applied to Jesus. So when we speak of Peter the Rock, it has nothing to do with whether the rock is large or small.

We have looked at the matter of the Greek and the Aramaic. It is interesting to note that for upon this rock the Greek employs the demonstrative adjective in the dative case, TAUTEE, together with the dative article TEE, to show the force implied in the demonstrative quality. From the Greek, this phrase can be translated THIS VERY SAME. So Mt 16:18 says: Thou art Peter, and upon THIS VERY SAME ROCK I will build my church (see 2 Cor 9:4; Mk 14:30; Acts 27:23). Jesus does not say “upon that rock” or “upon a rock”; rather, with the use of TAUTEE it is clear that Jesus is speaking of the very rock he has just mentioned: “upon this very same rock.”

The argument that, since Jesus is the stone in 1 Pet 2:4, he is therefore referring to himself when he said “and upon this rock I will build,” is mistaken, because in 1 Pet 2:5 we are all called stones (though not “PETROS” or “PETRA” but “LITHOS,” since only Peter is called by that name). On another occasion Jesus gave Peter yet another title. Jesus, who is the Good Shepherd that cares for the sheep (Jn 10:11), appoints Peter shepherd after his resurrection (Jn 21:15-17). God is King of Israel, but so too is David, in a subordinate way.

When we look at the context of Mt 16:18 (vv. 17 to 19), we see that Jesus says three things, all of them addressed to Peter. The first begins with Blessed art thou, the second: Thou art Peter/Rock, and the third with And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The first and the third are honors that Jesus grants to Peter. In this context, the second phrase, placed between the other two, will also be an honor: Thou art the rock. It makes no sense for Jesus to tell him, “You are an insignificant little pebble, yet here are the keys of the kingdom”(7). Moreover, the second half of each of these phrases relates to the first half and explains it: Peter is blessed (v. 17) — why? — because the Father revealed to him that Jesus was the Messiah. The third phrase, I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom , is followed by the explanation: whatsoever thou shalt bind… and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth is in heaven. So the second phrase must follow the same pattern: upon this rock I will build my church explains why Jesus calls Peter the Rock.

Many renowned Protestant Bible scholars — such as W. F. Albright, Oscar Cullmann, Herman Ridderbos, and C. S. Mann — wrote that Peter is the Rock in Mt 16:19, and that, in their view, saying otherwise merely “betrays prejudice.” Günther Bornkamm wrote: “In interpreting the words about Peter and the Church, Roman Catholic and Protestant theology have for quite some time been drawing closer to one another. The “rock” is not Christ, as Luther already thought; nor is the rock Peter’s faith or the office of preaching, as the Reformed understood it, but rather Peter himself as the leader of the Church.”

Some will say that God is called “Rock” or “Stone,” and therefore a man cannot be so called. But God called Abraham the rock in Isaiah: Give ear to me, you that follow that which is just, and you that seek the Lord: look unto the rock whence you are hewn, and to the hole of the pit from which you are dug out. Look unto Abraham your father (51:1-2).

If, after Peter denied him, Jesus had called Peter “mud” and had said to him, “you are mud, and upon this mud I will not build my Church,” no brother would then question that Jesus was referring to Simon-Peter.

If Jesus were referring to Peter’s confession as the rock and not to the Apostle himself, why did he not name Nathanael’s confession as rock? For Nathanael immediately confessed, thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel (Jn 1:49), merely because Jesus had seen him under a fig tree.

Jesus did not say “upon myself I will build my church,” nor did he say “upon Peter’s confession I will build my Church.” We must be honest with the Bible and not add words. Why did Paul keep calling Peter CEPHAS (see 1 Cor 15:5, among others) if he was not? If Matthew wanted us to understand that Jesus was the Rock, why did he not make it clear? Because what is clear is that it was Peter.

To the question, why did he change his name to “Peter” if it does not correspond to his identity? — it is clear that Jesus is the invisible Stone and that Peter is the visible Rock upon which Jesus built his Church. Jesus did not change his name by chance, which would only lead us into confusion. Peter is the Rock, and the Church of Jesus Christ is being built upon him.

The following texts demonstrate God’s plan, which consists in building this Church. And it will be visible, because it is the family of God (Eph 3:14), and families are not invisible.

And this Church will teach even the angels (Eph 3:10), and it will last unto all generations (3:21):

Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone (Eph 2:20). Here the Apostles form the foundation, while Jesus is the corner Stone in which the whole structure is held together.

And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb (Rev 21:14).

Then the churches had peace throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified (Acts 9:31).

You are God’s husbandry, God’s building (1 Cor 3:9).

You also are built together into a habitation of God in the Spirit (Eph 2:22).

Just as God, by calling Abraham a rock, made him the foundation of his people Israel (remember that he changed his name), so Jesus, by changing Peter’s name, would entrust to Peter the foundation of the New Israel, the Church. Peter is the father of the New Israel as Abraham is the father of the Old (Gen 17:5; see also Is 51:1-2). (We recall that Jacob’s name was changed to Israel.) Jesus also fulfills the prophecy of Amos 9:11 about “building the house.”

There is one thing in Matthew 16:18 that is very important. Jesus speaks of one church: I will build my church. It is singular. It was the only Church that existed at that time. Jesus did not say “I will build my churches”: “James gathers the Baptists, Peter the Catholics, Matthew — why not — the Nazarenes, and John the Mormons…” There are a great many churches today. Which one is built upon Peter? We already know.

The Power of the Keys

“The keys are for opening doors. On the day of Pentecost it was Peter who opened the door of the Gospel to the Jewish people.”(8)

“As a scribe learned in the kingdom of heaven, Peter brought forth the treasure of things new and old — Galatians 2:11-15; 1 Peter 1:1; 5:1 — which he set before the Jews at Pentecost (Acts 2) and before the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius (Acts 10).”(9)

Continuing with Matthew 16, let us now consider verse 19: And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. We see that Jesus gave the keys only to Peter, not to the other Apostles(10). What are the “keys of the Kingdom”? The brethren say it is the power to open mission fields: And when they were come and had assembled the church, they related what great things God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles (Acts 14:27; see 1 Cor 16:9; 2 Cor 2:12; Col 4:3). But these passages say it was God who opened the door. Moreover, Jesus gave the keys to a single apostle, not to the others. That is, the power Peter holds is not shared with others, even though the Bible speaks of God opening doors.

Other brethren say the keys refer to Peter, who would open the preaching on the day of Pentecost. (See, for example, Bible Handbook by Henry Halley.) Let us remember that the keys are “of the kingdom.” It cannot be that Peter “opened the kingdom” when he preached on the day of Pentecost, because it is Jesus who opened it: Jesus came preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, saying: The time is accomplished, and the kingdom of God is at hand (Mk 1:14-15). (Lk 17:21). Neither shall they say: Behold here, or behold there; for lo, the kingdom of God is within you.

Acts 2 says nothing about opening doors. We must be honest with the Bible. Paul speaks of opening doors, but he does not mention the keys that Jesus gave to Peter alone. What are the “keys”? In Mt 16:19, Jesus fulfills a biblical prophecy: And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder; and he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father (Is 22:22-23). It is the only place in the OT where the keys are symbolic (see Judg 3:25), so Mt 16:19 must be referring to it.

The Church is now the New House of the new King David (Acts 15:16)(11). King Jesus holds the keys (Rev 3:7), and now, like any king, he entrusts them to the care of his steward Peter.(12)

What is Jesus doing? Besides fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy, Jesus uses an example drawn from the reality of his day. Every king (David, Solomon, Herod, Caesar) had a palace, and the king would choose a steward (see, for example, Is 36:22; Gen 41:40) whom he charged with opening and closing the palace door (that is, all the ministers’ offices), managing all the affairs of the kingdom, sealing or withholding the seal from all important documents, and guarding the king’s treasure (Is 22:15) (Ancient Israel, Roland de Vaux, 1961, p. 30). See the role of the doorkeeper in Mk 13:32-34. “Whoever holds the keys has the authority within the house to be its administrator and its teacher” (The New Interpreter’s Bible, 1995, p. 346).

Jesus is the King, and he gives this charge to Peter. Peter has the authority to open and to shut, so he is the instrument of access to the king and takes charge of the treasure that Jesus wants to give us (mentioned in Mt 6:20). In Jn 10:2-3 we read: But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth… There are two figures: the Shepherd and the doorkeeper. The Doorkeeper will of course hold the keys. In short, Jesus holds the keys (Rev 3:7) and gives them to Peter to build his Church. And the Church belongs to Jesus Christ, not to Peter: I will build my Church. The Protestant Bible scholar F. F. Bruce (perhaps the most important of evangelical theologians) affirmed in his book The Hard Sayings of Jesus that Peter is made the steward of the house that Jesus Christ was going to build — this from a man opposed to the papacy!

The power to bind and to loose in Mt 16:19 referred to the religious-legal affairs of the people of God. It concerns doctrine (teachings) and the power to make decisions, to declare what is permitted and what is forbidden. The renowned Protestant Bible scholar W. F. Albright (“dean of American biblical scholars”) writes in his commentary on Matthew that “Peter’s authority to “bind” and to “loose” will be to carry out decisions already made in Heaven. His teaching and disciplining will be guided by the Spirit to accomplish the will of Heaven” (Matthew in Anchor Bible, p. 198).

In the OT, when God established the Covenant with the people of Israel, he guaranteed a living and continuing authority through the priesthood of Moses (2 Chr 19:11; Mal 2:7). That authority did not end when the O.T. was written but continued in order to safeguard and authenticate its interpretation.

Non-Catholic religions do not have the keys or the power to bind and loose. So how can each founder of a Protestant church have his own interpretation of the Bible? No prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation (2 Pet 1:20). On certain matters, Peter says, not just anyone can understand Paul’s letters: ...in almost all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, among which are some things hard to understand, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction (2 Pet 3:15-16 and chapter 3).

Peter showed his authority when he had another Apostle appointed (Acts 1:15-22) and when he judged Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11). We see in this text that to lie to Peter was to lie to the Holy Spirit (v. 3)! He is protected from confusion in the faith caused by error and false teachings: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren (Lk 22:32).

We note that Jesus says “Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you” — it is plural: the devil wants to destroy all the apostles. Yet Jesus prays for Peter: “I have prayed for thee” (singular).

We also note that Jesus said this after speaking of the Apostles’ role in the kingdom. Commenting on these verses, John Chrysostom says that “God allowed Peter to fall because he wished to make him the ruler of the world. Peter would remember his own fall and thus have compassion on others who fall.”

Do you think that this desire of Jesus — that Peter not fall into error — no longer applies to his successors?

The NT offers many lists of the Apostles. Only Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; and Acts 1:13 name them all. The first three specify Simon’s role as “Rock” by adding the name “Peter.” Peter appears first in these official catalogs; Matthew 10:2 begins by saying the first, Simon. And as some scholars have observed, it is redundant to say “the first, Simon ” at the head of the list if it merely means that Simon begins the list, rather than underscoring the fact of his primacy (see St. Peter and the Popes. Michael Winter, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1979).

Some brethren would try to use the argument that Peter had no authority over the others because in his letter he speaks of himself as an elder as well, equal to the rest (1 Pet 5:1). But this argument ignores what we have seen (in Mt 16:18-19; Lk 22:23; Jn 21:15-17, etc.). The fact is that Peter is humble; this teaching is part of his letter. Just as the President of a country is also a fellow citizen without this taking away his authority, so the Pope is a presbyter like any other and yet at the same time holds the authority of Peter.

Feed My Sheep

Jesus warned his followers not to expect an easy time; just as they treated him, so they would treat his Church (Mt 10:25). He knew that his “house” would be attacked, and that it would have to be built upon the rock (Mt 7:24).

The prophecy of Micah (7:14) that God would feed his flock is fulfilled in John 21:15. Three times Jesus commands Peter to “care for, feed, shepherd his sheep.” The Greek word POIMANE (“shepherd”) means to govern, to rule, to be a superintendent. (See footnote number 1 on Mt 2:6, shall rule, which is the same word. Compare also Rev 2:27 and 19:15.) The Protestant scholar Joachim Jeremias grants the universal authority conferred on Peter, distinct from the word “shepherd” used for local bishops.(13)

God has always chosen people (Noah, Moses, the prophets, etc.) for his purpose. But religions rebel against Jesus’ plan when they refuse to be cared for by the successor of Peter. It is as if a father appointed his eldest son to look after the other children — not necessarily because that son is perfect — and the other children refused to obey him.

The only Church that can trace a chronological line from the present back to Jesus is the Catholic Church, as the list of the popes and the works of the Apostolic Fathers show. Any honest person can verify this.(14)

After his Resurrection, Jesus Christ commanded Peter to feed all his lambs and sheep (Jn 21:15-17). Brother, are you a sheep of Jesus? If you consider yourself one, then Jesus Christ asked Peter to care for you!

We note the context once again: Peter takes the lead: I go a fishing. They said to him: We also come with thee (Jn 21:13). We know what happened. When they followed Jesus’ advice, the net filled up — so full that all the disciples had to drag it. Yet when Jesus asked for a fish, the Bible says that Peter drew the net to land (Jn 21:11). Is it merely a coincidence that Peter, with no one else’s help, could master the net when the others could not? No. Nor is it a coincidence that the Bible says the net was full of great fishes, and although there were so many, the net was not broken when Peter handled it. He is the Shepherd. He acts on Jesus’ orders: Bring hither of the fishes.

Another thing to note is that immediately after asking Peter to shepherd his sheep, Jesus speaks of the way Peter was going to die. Why? Because we recall Jesus’ words: the good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep (Jn 10:11).

After warning them to be watchful and prepared for every demand, Peter asked: Lord, dost thou speak this parable to us, or likewise to all? And the Lord said: Who is the faithful and wise STEWARD, whom his lord shall set over his household, to give them their measure of food in due season? (Lk 12:42). We see that Jesus answered Peter with a question: “Who is the servant?” In Jn 21:15-17 we learn the identity of this servant. Here is the faithful servant who is placed over the house to feed it with the food of the word of God, since not in bread alone doth man live (Mt 4:4). Jesus’ food was to do the will of his Father. So the food is the word of God (its teaching) and his will, which in part consists of the laws he has given us. We want to obey the Father as Jesus did.

After Jesus, Peter is mentioned 196 times in the NT. Paul and John, in second place, are mentioned only 46 times. Only Jesus is named more often. When the Apostles are named, Peter’s name is mentioned first, even though he was not the first Apostle called by Jesus. Peter demonstrated his authority over the whole Church when he visited the churches of Judea, Galilee, and Samaria — PANTON in Greek (meaning “all of them”) — making a pastoral visit (Acts 9:31-32), whereas Paul visited only the cities where he had preached (Acts 15:36).

Infallibility

“In 1870 the dogma of papal infallibility was proclaimed; yet this was nothing other than the proclamation of a belief that had been held almost universally by all faithful Catholics for hundreds of years.”(15)

The brethren try to make the faithful think that the Pope’s infallibility means he cannot err in anything, nor sin, and so this dogma appears to be nonsense. But infallibility is not the same as impeccability; the pope can sin, he can make mistakes.

Infallibility means that, under a certain condition called EX CATHEDRA (see below), the Pope cannot err in the areas of teaching on dogma and morals. A dogma is a decree, a legal or disciplinary prescription like the ordinances in Acts 16:4; that is, he would never state anything false or immoral.(16)

We do not claim that a particular pope, with or without a council, will be holy, well educated, always prudent, exceedingly wise, and so on. Although these are excellent qualities, they are not essential. What matters is that the Magisterium of the Church (its authority to teach) is guaranteed by Christ to be protected from error — that is what counts. I do not place my trust in the Pope but in Jesus Christ, who appointed him.

Jesus recognized the authority of the “chair of Moses” to teach, held by the scribes and Pharisees (Mt 23:2-3): All things whatsoever they shall tell you to observe, observe and do (even though they did not practice what they preached). This chair (seat) was not merely a metaphor for power. There truly was a stone seat in front of the synagogue where the one in authority (usually a scribe) rendered judgments on doctrinal and legal matters. As the Mishnah Aboth (a Jewish commentary) states, the Jews understood that the revelation Moses received from God was handed down by unbroken succession from Joshua through the elders, the prophets, and the Sanhedrin (Acts 15:21).

Since Jesus recognized the authority of the Pharisees’ teaching office to interpret the Sacred Scriptures when they spoke “from the chair,” we recognize the teaching office of the Church, which speaks no longer with the authority of Moses but with that of Jesus himself. He that receiveth you, receiveth me (Mt 10:40). He that heareth you, heareth me (Lk 10:16). And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven(Mt 16:19). Through this gift of God, it is assured that the faith received from Jesus will be preserved.

Obey your prelates (Heb 13:17).

As we saw, in Matthew 24 we read of the servant whom the Master placed in charge of the household: Who, then, is the faithful and wise servant, whom his lord appointed over his house, to give them their food in due season? Blessed is that servant whom his lord, when he comes, shall find so doing. Amen I say to you, he shall set him over all his goods. But if that wicked servant shall say in his heart, My lord delays his coming, and shall begin to strike his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with drunkards, the lord of that servant will come on a day he does not expect and at an hour he does not know, and will punish him severely, and appoint his portion with the hypocrites; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Mt 24:45-51). First we see that Jesus speaks of the servant whom he “sets over his house” (which represents the Church). This servant may act well or badly, and if he is disobedient and “strikes his fellow servants” (abusing his authority), he will be punished. But Jesus does not strip him of his power for being a bad servant, nor does he give us permission to leave the house in rebellion. He himself will punish those bad authorities of the Church.

It is no accident that Jesus chose Judas, who betrayed him; thus Judas’ betrayal prepared us to understand the bishops and Popes who would act the same way throughout history. In the chapter before chapter 24, Jesus told his Apostles to heed the teachings of the Pharisees because they held the authority of the chair of Moses, but without imitating their deeds (Mt 23:1).

This dogma of Infallibility is grounded in Christ’s promise to be with us until the end of the world. He will never abandon us, as we have already seen. Peter received God’s inspiration that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God: And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon, son of Jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven (Mt 16:17). He made important decisions in the Early Church, such as replacing Judas (Acts 1:15-26; see 15:7-12) and admitting Cornelius and the other Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10 is the background of Acts 15). This was his second infallible decision. Then, having heard these things (which Peter said), they held their peace and glorified God, saying: God then hath also to the Gentiles given repentance unto life! (Acts 11:18). Peter had spoken, he who holds the keys — or rather, God spoke once more through him. So when the Council of Jerusalem was convened to reach a decision, Peter had already made it in Acts 10 and 11. James merely repeated it: Wherefore I judge(17) that the Gentiles are not to be disquieted.

Without this gift that God confers on him, how could we be assured that our interpretation of the Bible is true? We see the problem in the many divisions among Protestants, each one claiming that his interpretation is the correct one. Jesus promised to send us the Holy Spirit to lead us into the fullness of truth (Jn 14:16 and 26; 16:13). How was this truth to reach us except through his Church?

Concerning the Pope’s infallibility, another author reminds us that we must distinguish between the types of papal pronouncements: “Christians must learn to distinguish the documents in which the Church engages her infallibility (the dogmatic definitions) from all other documents… Among the latter, it is still necessary to distinguish between the writings of the Pope and those issued by the various offices of the Vatican… Needless to say, these texts do not all carry the same “authority”” (Pierre Descouvemont, Guide to the Difficulties of the Catholic Faith, Desclée de Brouwer, Spain, 1992, pp. 247-248).

As for the documents of the Pope, we may distinguish: Constitutions, Epistles, encyclical Epistles addressed to a specific recipient and without dogmatic content, Apostolic Epistles, decretal Letters, Encyclical Letters, apostolic Letters, Epistles of the Episcopal Conferences and chirographs, and letters of personal opinion.

Protestants indirectly admit that God can give the gift of infallibility to men. He did so with the authors of the Bible, since they believe, as we do, that the Bible is infallible. He made Peter infallible when he wrote his First and Second Letters. So if God gave him the gift of infallibility when he taught in writing, why not when he taught by word of mouth? And if this happened with him, why not with his successor, knowing that without it there would be divisions in the interpretation of the Bible? How can we be assured that the interpretation of the Bible is also infallible? (See chapter 3.)

The Pope never reveals anything new; rather, he faithfully guards and sets forth the revelation handed down by the Apostles. He only defines a truth, and he does so in union with the whole Church. For this reason, the infallibility of the Pope is bound up with the infallibility of the Church.

The authors of the NT — Matthew, Mark, John, and so on — were fallible men. If the Holy Spirit could use them to write the infallible Bible, why could he not guarantee its interpretation down through the centuries by the authorities of the Church?(18)

Jesus gave an infallible interpretation of the OT (he even added new revelation); afterward he granted this gift to his Church, which would continue his work.

This would be nothing new in the history of the people of God. In the OT the high priest had a similar charism. In Ex 28:30 we see that he wore on his breast the breastplate of judgment, the Urim and Thummim. We read what an anti-Catholic magazine says: “The Urim and Thummin (sic) were part of the vestments of the High Priest… it was known as Light and Perfection. URIM — a type of the light of the Holy Spirit. THUMMIN — the perfection of the Word in hearts. It was said that when the High Priest wished to know the will of God for the people, he made use of the Urim and Thummin, which showed the Priest the will and the desires of God” (The Good Seed, evangelical magazine, No. 3, June-July 1996, p. 14).

So this “breastplate of judgment” with the Urim and Thummim (which mean “light and truth” in Hebrew) served to discern the will of God and settle disagreements among the people of Israel. For example, Moses commanded Joshua to seek out the high priest Eleazar, who, with his Urim and Thummim, could know when and by which route the Israelites were to pass (Num 27:21). In 1 Sam 14:41 Saul had the priest use the Urim and Thummim to resolve the dispute over who was at fault. See also other instances in Ezra 2:63 and Neh 7:65.

When God worked through this charism, the results were infallible, and it made no difference whether the priest was a saint or a scoundrel. In the NT we read: Then one of them, Caiphas, being the high priest that year, said to them: You know nothing. Neither do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this he said not of himself, but being the high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was to die for the nation (Jn 11:49-52). Although Caiaphas did not believe in the Messiah — and, worse still, condemned him to death — he prophesied correctly by virtue of his office as high priest of the people of God! Shall we then think less of the Apostle Peter?

Some brethren cite Gal 2:11-14, where Paul rebuked Peter, as proof that Peter did not have divine protection from error. But this is proof that Paul saw Peter as the head of the Church, which is why he had to confront him. As the leader, he could do great harm to the flock. Moreover, Peter had not spoken infallibly (ex cathedra); therefore he had defined nothing regarding doctrine — the problem was his conduct. Paul called him to account, as a subordinate may do with his superior. Peter let himself be swayed by the opinion of certain Jews who wanted to impose circumcision. Interestingly, on another occasion Paul did the same thing. He acted with an eye to the possible surprise and scandal of others: Paul wanted this man [Timothy] to go with him, and taking him, he circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places (Acts 16:3). Behold, I Paul tell you that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing (Gal 5:2).

Moreover, we do not forget that Paul, despite having had a vision of Jesus and being caught up to the third heaven, says in the same letter (1 Tim 1:18) that he went to confer with the Church in order to receive approval:

Peter’s admission of his error did not diminish his authority; rather, it was increased by his display of humility. This is the mark of a good leader.

In the OT we read something very significant concerning God’s mind about the authority he establishes: In those days Miriam and Aaron criticized Moses because he had taken a foreign woman as his wife. They said: “Has the Lord spoken only to Moses? Has he not also spoken to us?”….

The Lord said to them: “Hear my words. When there is a prophet among you, I make myself known to him through visions and dreams. But with Moses, my servant, it is very different: he is the most faithful servant of my house; I speak with him face to face, openly and without riddles, and he beholds the Lord face to face. Why, then, have you dared to criticize my servant Moses?” And the Lord’s anger was kindled against them. When he departed and the cloud withdrew from over the tent, Miriam was leprous…” (Num 12:1-2, 6-10).

What do we see here?

1) Moses did something wrong in marrying someone outside the people of God.

2) The prophet and Moses’ sister criticize him. But the most serious criticism is directed against Moses as God’s spokesman: “Has the Lord spoken only to Moses? Has he not also spoken to us?” This was to question Moses’ role as mediator and spokesman. It was to question his AUTHORITY. And in doing so, it was to question God himself. (Of course God speaks to everyone, but not with the same authority.)

3) The punishment was that God struck her with leprosy.

4) Of course Paul criticized Peter (his way of acting, but not his authority as spokesman).

Every day, in thousands of Masses throughout the world, we pray for the Pope in the eucharistic prayer, just as Jesus prayed for Peter in Lk 22:32.(19) If these prayers do nothing to help him, then what of our own intercessory prayer? What hope of help do we have when we ask others to pray for our needs, if praying for another is of no use?

Some brethren will say that the Pope is not the vicar of Christ, but that the Holy Spirit is. And it is true that the Holy Spirit is the vicar of Christ (Jn 15:26 and 16:13-15), but this does not exclude Peter. The word vicar means “one who holds the power and faculty of a superior and represents him.” We are ambassadors in the name of Christ (2 Cor 5:20). Jesus said: He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me (Lk 10:16). He that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me; and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me (Jn 13:20). It is very interesting to note that to receive or to reject the vicar of Christ is to receive or to reject the Heavenly Father. You received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus, says Paul (Gal 4:14).

We may summarize this subject in a few points:

1) Jesus promised divine assistance to his Church (Mt 28:19-20; Jn 14:26).

2) That is why the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).

3) The Church goes back at least to Pope Linus (who succeeded Peter). He is mentioned in 2 Tim 4:21, and no one doubts Paul.

4) Why did the Church associate its authority with Peter, who betrayed Jesus, and not with Paul? BECAUSE JESUS HAD APPOINTED HIM.

The brethren know that the context of a biblical text is important for its correct interpretation. So it is with Mt 16. In Mt 17:24-27 Jesus asks Peter to pay the temple tax. In 16:19 Jesus entrusted to him the keys of the Kingdom. Jesus gives him this power. When the other apostles want something, they go to the one who holds the keys of the treasury.

Likewise, in Mt 14:22ff Jesus gives Peter a supernatural power to do what no man had done: to walk on the water. And when he begins to sink, Jesus stretched out his hand to him. At that moment his faith was beginning to fail. But in reality Peter does not rely on his own faith or works to keep himself up, but on the hand of the Lord who lifted him. So Jesus said he would pray that Peter’s faith might not fail (Lk 22:32). It is Jesus stretching out his hand to him. This is the context of Mt 16.

The famous French theologian Garrigou-Lagrange concluded that the Greek word PROTOS in Matthew 10:2 undoubtedly demonstrates the primacy of Peter. In context it means “chief” or “first” (Évangile selon Saint Matthieu, p. 195).

If you expect to find a perfect Church, you will never attain

this goal. No such Church exists. And if it were perfect, it would cease to be so the moment you entered it. If you had lived in the first century, which congregation would you have chosen? The one at Corinth? The one at Laodicea? The one of the Galatians? They all had their problems. The challenge is to love (and sometimes tolerate) the Church that Christ founded, even with all the imperfections it has. It would be interesting to ask many Protestants what degree of infallibility they grant their pastor in his interpretation of the Bible.

And do not tell me that you “accepted Jesus as your savior and Lord” if you are unwilling to accept his will. Jesus said: Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, (hallelujah, glory to God, or similar words) shall enter into the kingdom, but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven (Mt 7:21). And his will is that he gave authority to Peter and to the Church; Jesus wants us to be cared for by Peter.

What Did the Early Church Say Concerning Infallibility?

From earliest times the Bishop of Rome was, as it were, the final arbiter of the Christian faith. Until the Greek schism of the ninth century there was no widespread opposition against the Pope. The first eight Ecumenical Councils, which were held in the East, always received the Pope’s approval before being convened, and his consent before being proclaimed binding upon the universal Church.

The Third Council of Constantinople (680) declared that “the Apostolic Church of Peter never strayed from the Truth,” and the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869) taught that “religion has always been preserved unstained in the Apostolic See.” In 451, when Pope Leo’s dogmatic letter to his representative, Bishop Flavian, was read aloud, the bishops of Chalcedon (near Constantinople) responded unanimously: “Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo.” The Council of Ephesus (431) called Pope Celestine the “guardian of the faith,” who teaches true doctrine because he is the successor of the Blessed Apostle Peter, head of the faith and Chief of the Apostles.

After all, if you accept the canon (the list) of the New Testament decided by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, why do you not accept the primacy of the Church of Rome, proclaimed at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 — 70 YEARS BEFORE CARTHAGE?

More on the Primacy of Peter

As we saw, God changed Abram’s name to Abraham, which means “father of the nations,” because he would be the father of the people of Israel: I have made thee a father of many nations (Gen 17:5). For this same reason, the Old Testament calls Abraham the rock, that is, the foundation of the people of God: Give ear to me, you that follow that which is just, you that seek the Lord. Look unto the rock whence you are hewn, and to the hole of the pit from which you are dug out. Look unto Abraham your father (Is 51:1-2).

Jesus Christ did the same with Simon. He changed his name and called him rock so that he would be the foundation of the new people of Israel: the Church. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:18). In this book I limit myself to treating a few important aspects of Mt 16:18-19(20)

We begin with verse 13 of this chapter. The first thing we notice is the place where Jesus chose to grant Peter this special authority: at Caesarea Philippi. This city lies at the foot of Mount Hermon and was formerly called Paneas (or Banyas), because of its association with the pagan nature god “Pan.” For this reason there were many shrines and pilgrimages there. One of the Herodian kings (the tetrarch) —Herod Philip— erected a shrine in honor of the emperor (Caesar): he had built in his honor a most beautiful temple of white stone (Antiquities of the Jews, Flavius Josephus, Book XV 10,3; Jewish War II 10,7). The worship of Caesar as a divine being (a god) had only just begun. He then changed the name of the city in his honor: Caesarea Philippi, which means “city in honor of Caesar, made by Philip.”

At Caesarea Philippi there is a great rock formation about 70 meters high and nearly 200 meters wide. It was called the Petra of Caesarea Philippi. Upon it stood the shrine to Pan.

Here Jesus asks: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? Whereas in this place it seems to be Caesar who is lord and master, ‘But whom do you say?’ Jesus asks his apostles.

Simon Peter answered: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. Simon is saying: You are the “Christos,” the Messiah, the Anointed One.

The Israelites had three kinds of persons who were anointed with oil, something physical that represented the invisible Holy Spirit. The PROPHET, anointed to proclaim the truth. He imparted the word of God. The one anointed as PRIEST, anointed to impart grace (God’s divine life) and forgiveness (sin is death; forgiveness is reconciliation with the God of life). The KING, anointed to ensure a just governance.

The Jewish tradition arose that one day the Messiah would come who would unite the three offices —Priest, Prophet, and King— in a single person. Jesus came and proclaimed himself to be the Way (king), the Truth (prophet), and the Life (priest). Peter recognized these three things in Jesus Christ when he called him Messiah. Jesus answered him: Blessed art thou, Simon, son of Jona (v. 17).

There is a parallel between what Peter says to Jesus: You are Christ, son of God, and what Jesus tells him: You are Simon son of Jona. (Or, as Matthew put it: You are CHRISTOS… and you are PETROS). When one speaks in this manner, mentioning something of one’s genealogy, it forms part of the formal language of the court; that is, it is royal language. Likewise, Jesus saw in Peter the three traits: prophet, king, and priest(21).

Jesus affirms that Peter is a prophet who reveals the truth by proclaiming that Jesus is the Messiah, and that this capacity does not come from Peter: flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. Peter was neither the most intelligent nor the most beloved. Jesus acknowledged that, through this revelation, the Heavenly Father had chosen Peter. Thus Peter shares in Jesus’ prophetic role of proclaiming the truth and resolving the christological controversy: “Whom do men say…?” … Some say you are….

In v. 18 Jesus tells Peter that he also has the authority and role of being a priest: thou art Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail. How so?

In the poetic texts of the Old Testament there are examples showing that in Jewish tradition there existed the idea of a stone, rock, and/or a threshing floor that constituted something important in history: the EBEN SHETIEL, the foundation stone. It was regarded as the most ancient thing in the world, the first thing created by God, and therefore the most sacred.

This is the place where Joseph stopped for seven days to mourn while the remains of his father were being carried to be buried: the threshing floor of Atad (Gen 50:10). The Philistines stole it

(1 Sam 23:1). The plagues end when David buys a threshing floor (2 Sam 24:15-25 and 1 Chr 21). David built an altar upon a threshing floor.

When David brought back the Ark that had been captured by the Philistines, God had to steady the Ark, which shook as it passed over the threshing floor (2 Sam 6:6). That is to say, the threshing floor held some significance.

In Genesis we read that the earth was covered by water: the earth was without form (Gen 1:2), because water has no form; it is chaotic. Through the Spirit, God began to separate the waters, and the first thing that “came out” of the water (rose up from it) was “a dry ground,” the dry land (Gen 1:9), seen as a high summit (and therefore near to God and most sacred): Mount Zion. It is where God made Eden.

The Psalms speak of the stone through which the sacred light shines: the SHEKINAH. “As a place of worship, the rock is also the place of divine revelation (Judg 6:20-21 and 13:19).” (Diccionario Teológico del Nuevo Testamento, Coenen, Beyreuther, and Bietenhard, Sígueme, Spain, 1994.)

In Jewish cosmology, the place of Sheol (Greek: HADES) lies beneath the earth. This underground place is dark, a place of decay and chaos, where the threat always looms that the water will cover the earth again and plunge it into chaos (Ps 18:16). Below is a representation of the world as the Jews understood it:

The Jews were not a seafaring people like the Gentiles (the Philistines). For them the sea represented evil (recall the storms at sea with the Apostles). The Jews identified themselves with the (promised) land of Israel. God held back the source of the chaotic waters of Sheol with a stone. The gates of Sheol were like the jaws of a monster that swallows up earthly things.

From this foundational earth mentioned above, God creates Adam (ADAM means “earth” in Hebrew). Adam raised an altar and made a covenant with God (Hos 6:7). It is also where Jacob set up an altar after wrestling with the angel (and receiving a new name: Israel) (Gen 28:18). Simon Peter received a new name to correspond with the Church (as the new Israel).

The rock rose out of the waters and formed a mountain. Mount Moriah, where Solomon built the temple (2 Chr 3:1). The Ark of the Covenant is placed upon it: And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be prepared on the top of mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills (Is 2:2). May the Lord bless thee out of Sion (Ps 134:3).

Also, according to Jewish tradition, it was from this stone of Eden that God said: “let there be light.” And behind the stone the darkness withdrew. Come and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us his ways, and we will walk in his paths. For the law shall come forth out of Sion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem (Is 2:3). The Lord will roar from Sion, and utter his voice [truth, light] from Jerusalem (Am 1:2). Thus saith the Lord: I am returned to Sion, and I will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem; and Jerusalem shall be called the City of Truth, and the mountain of the Lord of hosts, the Mountain of Holiness(Zech 8:3).

The symbolism of the rock was not merely a play on words with Peter’s name; rather, it comes from the tradition of the Old Testament and even earlier than that. In Is 28:16 we read: Behold, I will lay in the foundations of Sion a stone, a tried stone, a corner stone, a precious stone, founded in a sure foundation (Is 28:16). “I am going to lay in Zion a chosen and very precious stone, which will be the chief stone and will serve as the foundation” (Dios Habla Hoy).

The belief of that time was that the capital and the principal temple were raised upon the Foundation Stone of the entire universe. In creating the world, the first thing God did was to set a firm stone, a stone that covers and caps the chaotic subterranean waters. This becomes the center upon which the rest of the universe is created. The capital and/or the temple was built upon this Foundation Rock. Isaiah, in speaking of Mount Zion —the Mount upon which the Temple of Jerusalem was built— uses the same image of the stone, the Center of the Earth, the secure foundation upon which Yahweh has raised the entire structure of his people.

In a similar way, “Jesus uses this symbolism to speak of the secure foundation upon which the community of the Church is built”(22). Jesus asks the Apostles “Who am I?”, and finds nothing but darkness: “you are John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah…” until the light (truth) comes forth through Peter, the Rock. Jesus recognizes that Simon is the stone through which the light emerges. He, then, will be the stone upon which he would build his Church. He will be the threshing floor that would fulfill the function of priest through his relationship with the altar, the offering (Adam, Jacob, David), and the temple.

And this rock will keep the gate of Sheol/Hades, along with its chaos, shut. Peter is the prophet who guards the truth and the priest who protects the divine life that Jesus entrusted to the Church through the Sacraments, so that the “chaos of sin” may not destroy us.

In v. 19 Peter is made King, or at least shares in royalty with Jesus by being his steward, in that he holds the power of the keys of the Kingdom. He alone holds the keys to bind and to loose. It is another way of saying to open and to close. The others will have this power, but he alone holds the keys, like the prime minister. He is prefigured in Eliakim of Is 22:20ff, as we have already seen. In Is 22, Shebna (the wicked steward) is replaced by Eliakim. God will clothe him with the garments of authority (Is 22:21) to govern, and he shall be as a father (Patriarch). And upon his shoulder I will lay the keys of the House (family and kingdom) of David. There is stability in his office: I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place. He shall have his seat of honor, a throne as a symbol of authority (Is 22:23).

Verse 24 is important because it shows that this office was transmitted by dynastic succession to the firstborn (or to another, should he fall into sin): They shall hang upon him all the glory of his father’s house, the sons and the grandsons... This dynasty, which prefigures the apostolic succession, will not be perfect (v. 25), because it is only a “type” of the New Covenant.

Jesus is the son of David and makes Peter his prime minister. Upon the Petra stood a shrine dedicated to the lord-god, the emperor. Now upon Petros (Peter), Jesus would build the true shrine to the true Master and Lord: to the Anointed One, king of the Jews. With him begins the spiritual dynasty of the new Israel: the Church of Jesus Christ.

What Did the Early Church Say?

In what follows we will see that the earliest Christians held the same beliefs as the Catholic Church. All these faithful lived only a few years after the Apostles. Some were ordained by the Apostles. The oldest catechism is the Didache, written around A.D. 70. We divide the writings according to doctrine.

We have already mentioned Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna (see topic 2), both disciples of John the Apostle, and Clement of Rome, converted by the Apostle Peter. Now we present other Apostolic Fathers and other Christians.

The Shepherd of Hermas, A.D. 160.

Justin Martyr wrote his Apology around A.D. 150-155. There are some citations from his book Dialogue with Trypho.

Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp.

Some other Apostolic Fathers are mentioned, with the date (in parentheses) —at the latest around the time of Constantine— and the work in which the text can be found. It is impossible to mention even half of all the Fathers, let alone to quote them.

An excellent book that presents the citations of the Apostolic Fathers by topic (for example, Sacraments, Works, and Church) is La Predicación del Evangelio en los Padres de la Iglesia, by Miguel Peinado P., Edit. B.A.C., 1992.

1) The Church was first called “catholic” in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius of Antioch

2) Preserving the traditions, and Peter in Rome.

Polycarp (#17)

Ignatius (Letter to the Philippians 7,1): the apostles “evangelized us.” The bishops, priests, and deacons were appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ by his Holy Spirit.

Ignatius (Letter to the Smyrnaeans): “where Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church. Without the bishop it is not lawful to baptize.”

Clement (Letter to the Corinthians 5,1, p. 76) Paul and Peter were persecuted unto death in Rome.

Clement (p. 113): The Apostles, following the will of God, went out to preach, to baptize, and to appoint those who were “their first fruits, after approving them by the Spirit, as bishops (overseers).. The Apostles entrusted the work of Christ to their followers.”

Clement (p. 114): “The Apostles, by the inspiration of Our Lord Jesus Christ, had perfect foreknowledge of what was to come. They appointed the aforementioned men and, at the same time, gave them the charge that, when they should die, other approved men would succeed them in the ministry.”

3) Peter died in Rome.

Clement (Epistle to the Corinthians 5:1): Peter was persecuted unto death in Rome. Archaeologists found his remains. There has never been another city that claimed to possess his bones.

Ignatius: Epistle to the Romans, 4:3.

Irenaeus (180): Against Heresies, 3, 3:2 and 3:1.

Gaius (198): in the Disputation with Proclus, in a work of Eusebius (Church History, 2, 25:5).

Dionysius of Corinth (166): in the Epistle to Soter of Rome, in a work of Eusebius (Church History, 2, 25:8).

Tertullian (207): Against Marcion, 4, 5:1.

Clement of Alexandria (190): mentioned in Eusebius (History, 6, 14:1).

Peter of Alexandria (306): in Penance, Canon 9.

Our brethren do not doubt that Paul died in Rome. And Paul mentions Linus (2 Tim 4:21). Thus the Apostolic Succession goes back at least to Linus. Why did the Church of Rome associate its authority with Peter, who betrayed Jesus, and not with Paul? It must be because Peter held it.

No church or people claims the bones of Peter except the Church of Rome. Brother, do you believe they would have built the Basilica of Peter over a tomb that did not exist? Why would Constantine tear down the sacred pantheon in order to raise the temple? This place was supremely sacred to the Romans. There must have been something even more sacred there for the Christians.

4) The Primacy of Peter the rock

Tertullian (213): in On Monogamy, 8:4.

Clement of Alexandria (190): in Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved?, 21:3-5.

Origen (244): Homilies on the Book of Exodus, 5:4., In Rom 5:10.

Cyprian (250): Epistle to Those Who Ceased to Attend, 33 (27):1. Epistle to Florentius Pupianus, 66:(69):8.

Ephrem (338): Homilies, 4:1.

Cyril of Jerusalem (350): Catechetical Lectures, Catechesis, 2:19.

Augustine: Serm. 46, 13, Peter the rock.

It is important to note that Hilary of Poitiers, in his Treatise on Psalm 131, 4, says that Peter’s confession is also the Rock. But this was in order to combat Arianism, which diminished Christ. John Paul II teaches that, Peter’s Confession being the Rock as well —that the Rock is Christ and the faith in Him on Peter’s part— we come back to the same point: the Rock-Christ prays for Peter, who will confirm the other apostles (Lk 22:32) and asks him to shepherd his sheep (Jn 21:15).

“St. John Chrysostom (Hom. Mt 54, 2) stresses the magnitude of the power granted by Christ to Peter in entrusting the keys to him” (“Jerarquía, Infalibilidad y Comunión Inter Eclesial,” Enrique Dóriga, Herder, 1972, p. 124).

Notes:

  1. Hephzibah means “My delight is in her,” and Beulah means “Married.”
  2. Jesus means SAVIOR.
  3. Page three of the Cornerstone Church. “The rock is the revelation that Peter received.” The Protestant author of the book titledEl Apóstol Pedro by W. H. Griffith Thomas (Edit. CLIE, 1984) says that “great Protestant scholars (such as Dr. Hort)” admit that Petra and Petros are the same Apostle Peter (p. 31). Nevertheless, the author ends with the idea that the rock is Peter’s confession.
  4. “The only ancient literary testimony says that Matthew wrote in Aramaic” (Comentario Bíblico San Jerónimo, Vol. III, Spain: Ediciones Cristiandad, p. 171.) See the new 1990 edition, pp. 630-631. Moreover, “little stone” in Aramaic is EVNA.
  5. Note that the translation La Versión Popular (from the same publisher that prints the Reina-Valera) renders it: “You are Peter, and upon this Stone I will build my Church.” In the Brief Concordance at the back of the Bible published by the Bible Societies, we note that “Stone” and “Rock” come to mean the same thing (p. 199).

The Protestant biblical commentary The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible says that there is evidence of Semitic forms (Aramaic) behind the Greek text in Matthew. It also admits that Peter is the Rock.

In the Protestant biblical dictionary we read: “There is no difference in meaning between the two words: just as petros can denote the rock, petra can also denote the stone… In Mt 16:18 Peter is called by Jesus <Stone>… both the Aramaic Kefas and the Greek petros can denote stone or rock, and therefore, in Mt 16:18, petra may be translated as <Stone>, <Rock>” (Diccionario Teológico del Nuevo Testamento Vol. IV, by Coenen et al., 1971, 1994, pp. 116-117. See the article “Roca” by W. Mundel).

Rafael Aguirre, in “La Figura de Pedro en el evangelio de Mateo,” in Pedro en la Iglesia Primitiva, says that Jesus gave Simon the name “stone” because of the Old Testament tradition of the “precious stone” (p. 49). See Lam 4:1-2; Song 5:14; Is 28:16; Ex 28:17-21; Rev 21:20. Peter is the stone upon which he will build his church. He came to be the Rock because of “his prominent place among the disciples… because of Peter’s position in the early Church.”

  1. In Comentario Bíblico Mundo Hispano, Vol. 14, Matthew, by various authors, 1993, from the same publishing house of Casa Bautista de Publicaciones, 1993, pp. 222-223. Although in the end they come to say that the rock is not Peter but his confession (p. 223).
  2. Moreover, in Aramaic simón means “grain of sand.” So if PETROS meant “little stone,” Jesus would be saying to Peter: “Simon, you are a grain of sand, but I call you an insignificant little stone.” It would make no sense to change his name.
  3. Catolicismo ROMANO by the evangelical theologian Rev. Dr. Hugo P. Jeter (Editorial CLIE, Spain, 1994, p. 51). Besides being full of erroneous presentations of Catholic teaching, this book —printed in 1994 and claiming to offer an “understanding of the Catholic Church today” (as its subtitle states)— presents outdated practices such as: “To receive the elements of the Mass, the participant goes to the front and kneels before the altar” (p. 37). This practice changed with the Second Vatican Council in 1965.
  4. The evangelical Mr. Raúl Caballero Yoccou, in the book Sobre Esta Roca Edificaré Mi Iglesia (Edit. Unlit, USA, 1991, 1993, p. 19). Galatians 2:11-15 and 1 Peter 1:1; 5:1 have nothing to do with the keys; moreover, the NT never speaks of Peter opening doors — it is God who opens them (Acts 14:27; 2 Cor 12 and Col 4:3), directly and/or through Paul (1 Cor 16). Nevertheless, only Peter received the keys from Jesus Christ. Not Paul.
  5. In the little booklet La Biblia Católica tiene la Respuesta by the evangelical theologian Dr. Oswald Smith (published by Cruzada Mexicana en Cada Hogar), we read: “These keys and Power represent the authority he gave to ALL BELIEVERS in Matthew 18:18-19. In any case, what is spoken of here is a kingdom and not the keys of the Church” (p. 3). But Jesus did not give the keys to everyone, but only to Peter: “to thee,” and not “to you all.” This pamphlet is full of errors.
  6. See the Concordance at the back of the Reina Valera, p. 248.
  7. Some people try to use the argument that Is 22:22 refers to Jesus because the prophet announced the Lord. It is true that Isaiah prophesied about Jesus, but chapter 22:22-23 does not speak of Jesus Christ. King Hezekiah, the royal descendant of the throne of David, makes Eliakim steward of the palace. The prophecy about the keys concerns Eliakim, not the king who hands them over. In Revelation 3:7 Jesus has the key of David, but he is not a steward. Like the kings of the Old Testament, Jesus, a descendant of the throne of David, gives the keys to Peter his steward (The Collegeville Bible Commentary). Or do you think that Jesus is the steward and that there is another messiah, a descendant of David greater than he? In short, the keys are a symbol of authority.
  8. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Eerdmans, USA, 1993, p. 498, cited inPeter and the Orthodox: a reprise, Ray Ryland, Catholic Answers, Oct. 1996, pp. 26, the same as Chrysostom.
  9. I have at hand 16 quotations from the Apostolic Fathers affirming that Peter was (and died) in Rome. Archaeology has confirmed this fact. We would have to admit that a few (very few) Apostolic Fathers thought that the rock of Mt 16:18 was also Peter’s confession in v. 16, without excluding that it was Peter.
  10. ¿Por qué Soy Evangélico?, by C. William Fisher (titled in English “Why I Am a Nazarene?”) (USA: Casa Nazarena de Publicaciones, 1961), p. 52.
  11. It is not a matter of comparing the Pope with the Apostle Peter in superficial things such as his manner of dress, way of life, etc., but of considering in him what is deepest: as Supreme Shepherd of the Universal Church.
  12. Peter’s Word continues to be law in the Church. In the Greek KRINO, better translated as “I am of the opinion,” as in Acts 13:46; 15:19; 16:15 and 26:8, among others (Ibid., p. 28). Note that, whereas the minor decisions that James made concerning not eating blood or meat offered to idols, the decision
  13. The author of the book Análisis del ROMANISMO, J. A. Phillips (USA: Casa Bautista de Publicaciones), addresses this subject but contradicts himself. On the one hand he says that the Pope cannot proclaim an infallible dogma because “there is no human language flexible enough to express and transmit, in an absolute and precise manner, the formulas of truths that cannot be proven through investigation and corroborated in the school of experience. Words, whether written or spoken, are marvelous things. Nevertheless, words are merely symbols” (p. 95). On the other hand, speaking of the Bible, he says, “There are two differences regarding the doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible held by Protestants…. The Holy Spirit is indispensable for understanding Scripture” (pp. 97-98). Is not Mr. Phillips’ Bible written “in a human language”? How is it “held as infallible by Protestants,” as he claims, if, according to him, “there is no human language flexible enough to express and transmit in an absolute manner…”?
  14. It is interesting to note that during Herod’s persecution, James was taken prisoner and killed without much commotion among the Christians, but when this happened to Peter: prayer was made without ceasing by the church unto God for him(Acts 12:5). Peter was the great leader of the Church.
  15. Some of what follows comes from notes of a lecture given by Catholic Answers, P.O. Box 17181, San Diego, CA 92177. Part of the Jewish sources for the following are extra-biblical and form part of the oral tradition of interpretation. For more on this tradition, read Evangelio y tradición de Israel, Matthieu Collin & Pierre Lenhardt, EVD, Spain, 1991.
  16. Another parallel is the link between heaven and earth: “You are Christ, son of God” (heaven) and “You are stone” (earth). “My Heavenly Father” (heaven) and “powers of Sheol” (beneath the earth). “Bind/loose in heaven” and “what you bind/loose on earth.”
  17. From Turning Point at Caesarea Philippi, Donald Senior, Credence Cassettes, 1986.