“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”

Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

Matthew 16:15-23

The Roman Catholic Church claims that its authority structure is founded in Matthew 16 where Jesus makes Peter the first Pope. And that every subsequent Pope has had the same authority and power as were given to Peter. Peter was able to speak for God, as evidenced by his letters 1 and 2 Peter. And since this passage gives the authority to Peter and all of his successors then every Pope since Peter can speak for God with the same authority.

So, did Jesus really set up this authority structure here in Matthew 16?

If we look closely at verse 18 we can see that Jesus is addressing Peter in the 2nd Person “..you…you..” followed by His addressing of the rock on which He will build His church in the 3rd Person. So what does “this” refer to? Could it be that He is referring to Peter? If so, then why the 3rd Person wording? Or could it be that He is referring to Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God? This second way the verse can be interpreted seems quite legitimate considering the whole reason Jesus was there, to die on the cross for our sins as God incarnate. Jesus didn’t bring any new revelation accept that of His identity and purpose. All the rest of his teachings could be found in the Old Testament. He just clarified or restated it. Who Jesus is, is a critical part of the New Testament message, a foundational part. And it could very well be that the rock/foundation that Jesus is building His Church upon is this belief/knowledge that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God i.e. His identity.

The nature of the passage seems inherently ambiguous. While this passage can be taken in a Roman Catholic sense, it can also be taken in a Protestant sense, which to me, is the better way of taking it because it fits better within the framework of Holy Scripture.

The Papal structure of authority rests on this verse. Even if we grant that Jesus was referring to Peter here, the Papal structure that follows is not there. The whole Roman Catholic Project could be viewed like a huge upside down pyramid with its point resting on this one ambiguous verse. I think that being dogmatic about this verse being the central verse that authenticates and verifies the entire enterprise makes their case very weak.

So where does the Papal structure of authority come from? Where does the idea that Jesus came here to set up an organisation come from? Rome points to the keys and the binding authority given in verse 19. The problem with the binding authority being given only to Peter is that Jesus also gives this binding authority to all His disciples in Matt 18:18. A closer look at the original Greek of these 2 verses results in a more forceful translation which can be found in a few Bible translations. The more forceful translation would be “whatever you bind on earth must have been bound in heaven” indicating that whatever Peter and the disciples do or say has already been cemented in Gods truth. No new or contradicting information is allowed for. So a future Pope proclaiming something contradicting an earlier revelation flies in the face of these verses. Especially after what Paul says in Gal 1:8-9.

The strongest support for the Catholic Authority structure comes from the keys reference. Roman Catholic apologists claim that this keys reference is equivalent to the keys given to Eliakim in Isaiah 22:20-22. Very similar language is used here. The key given here is in reference to an office of Prime Minister in the Kingdom of David. This office and authority was passed on to the next Prime Minister and so on which is why Rome claims that Jesus was setting up the same office of which Peter was the first. Rome claims that David’s kingdom was a prototype for the kingdom that Jesus established and that He set up the same authority structure in Matthew 16. And that this is why Jesus is referred to as sitting on David’s Throne and being the Son of David Luke 1:32. While we can see where the claim comes from, we just don’t see the authority and power, that Rome now claims for itself, reflected in Isaiah. Isaiah 22:20-22 is the first and last we hear of Eliakim and his office. We certainly don’t see Eliakim wielding the power and authority that Rome claims it has been given.

Just as in Matt 16:18, the keys reference can be quite validly taken another way. The very next verse to Jesus saying “I will give you the keys…” indicates that “From that time on…” Jesus started telling His disciples about His death and resurrection. I think a key word here is “will”. Will seems to indicate a future event. And this future event could very well be the message of His death and resurrection that Jesus started preaching in verse 19. The keys of the kingdom could very well be the message of Jesus’ death and resurrection. This makes sense given what Jesus is all about. If one were to sum up the New Testament into the two critical points that you have to have correct, they would be; 1) That Jesus is the God-man, i.e. His identity; 2) That Jesus died on a cross for our sins and was resurrected, i.e. His purpose. Jesus’ message was very simple “Believe(trust) in me”.

Note also that Peter’s status seems to be dependant on whether he is turned toward God or away. When he is turned toward God by identifying the first of these critical point (Jesus’ identity) he is blessed. But when he is turned away from God by denying the second critical point (that Jesus will be killed and raised again) he is Satan and a scandal. So it is more likely that it’s Peters confession which is the foundation or Rock that the Church is Built on. And the key to heaven is Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross.

Many Protestants have gone forward, not under the authority of Rome, but with the message that Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, died and was resurrected. And this has caused the kingdom to go forward and the Church to be established.

Consider also that these verses are found in Matthew and not Mark. It was Mark after all who was Peter’s disciple. He wrote his account from Peter’s perspective. If Peter was instructing Mark in all things that needed to be recorded and passed on, then surely details on this “important” office would be among those things passed on as a pattern for future church generations to follow. Yet noting is mentioned. Not even in Peters own writings. Instead he just refers to himself as “an apostle” and “a bond-servant” of Jesus Christ just like the others.

Add to this the fact we see no evidence of the Roman Catholic centralised authority structure until Gregory the Great in 600 AD. The first Church was in Jerusalem and the message went first to the Jew’s before it ever got to the Gentiles and Rome. James was the leader in Jerusalem and it was he who took charge and directed the first church council Acts 15. In 325 AD we had the Nicean Council where Rome sent 2 representatives just like all the other churches in the area. No primacy of Rome here either.

So we have an ambiguous passage being the central passage on which much of the Roman Catholic Church relies upon which can be quite legitimately be understood in a Protestant sense. And this sense seems to be much more in tune with Jesus’ purpose as reflected in the entirety of scripture.

An additional problem that I have with the idea that Jesus set up an office of power and authority that would pass from Pope to Pope is that all subsequent Popes have not had the same miraculous gifts (as far a s we know) that Peter had. The power to drive out demons, heal, speak in languages that they had not learned and interpret those languages. Throughout the Bible (OT and NT) we find that new revelation was accompanied by these miraculous signs as proof that it was God speaking. And once God had revealed Himself, once Christ had finished His work, once the apostles had written it all down, we find these gifts fading away. By the end of Acts the gifts had pretty much disappeared and only mentioned once elsewhere in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. If we are to say that God is still revealing Himself through the Catholic Church, then we would expect miracles of the calibre of those performed by Jesus and the apostles to be continuing in the Catholic Church today (at least by the Pope!!). I can’t remember the last time I heard about the Pope visiting the hospital healing all the patients in the same way Peter did in Acts 3 when he healed a congenitally deformed man (which was identical to the way Jesus did) instantly with a word and a touch.

So what do we make of the miracles claimed by the Catholic Church then? Do they resemble any that are performed in the Bible? Many claimed miracles of the Catholic Church are related to relics. The bones of Stephen and John the Baptist; the feather droppings from the wings of Gabriel when he announced the birth of Jesus to Mary; Mary nursing (breast feeding) people; statues and paintings of Mary producing milk at certain times; stigmata’s; visitations and images that do nothing other than look like Mary and Jesus (as if we know what they looked like). Do these sound anything like a Biblical account of the miraculous? Hardly. Satan is busy counterfeiting. Counterfeiting what is valuable.  People don’t counterfeit brown paper or sticks, they counterfeit what is valuable and Satan is doing the same and fooling a lot of people.

So, was Peter the First Pope? No. He was just another servant of Jesus like every other genuine Christian out there obeying Jesus. He even had the advantage of actually seeing and experiencing Jesus firsthand and receiving spiritual gifts never seen in the church since. I am reminded of John 20:29 “Jesus said to them ‘Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.’”

Most Commented Posts