The Primacy of Peter

Where Is That In The Bible | Patrick Madrid

[NYer]

Among Catholic doctrines, those pertaining to the papacy tend to be the most misunderstood and contested by non-catholics. The following verses show the biblical basis for Catholic teaching on the primacy of Peter, the office of the papacy being established by Christ and allusions to the doctrine of infallibility. These doctrines reached their full development in the life of the Church only after centuries of contemplation and study, in councils and through the actions of the popes. And we should never forget that since the Church is likened by Christ to a “mustart seed” that grows and develops organically from a speck into a large treelike plant, therefore we should not expect to see the Church’s doctrines fully developed and visible in its present form in the pages of the New Testament. What we do find in the New Testament though, is the scriptural record of Peter’s primacy among the Apostles and the seminal outlines of the doctrines pertaining to the papacy.

The Primacy of Peter

One compelling biblical fact that points clearly to Simon Peter’s primacy among the 12 Apostles and his importance and centrality to the drama of Christ’s earthly ministry, is that he is mentioned by name (e.g. Simon, Peter, Cephas, Kephas, etc.) 195 times in the course of the New Testament. The next most often-mentioned Apostle is St. John, who is mentioned a mere 29 times. After John, in descending order, the frequency of the other Apostles being mentioned by name trails off rapidly.

When the names of all the Apostles are listed, Peter is always first. Judas Iscariot, the Lord’s traitor, is always listed last (cf. Matt. 10:2-5; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-17; and Acts 1:13). Sometimes Scripture speaks simply of “Simon Peter and the rest of the Apostles” or “Peter and his companions” (cf. Luke 9:32; Mark 16:7; Acts 2:37), showing that he had a special role that represented the entire apostolic college. Often, Scripture shows Simon Peter as spokesman for the entire apostolic college, as if he were the voice of the Church (cf. Mat. 18:21; Mark 8:29; Luke 8:45; Luke 12:41; John 6:68-69).

Other Citations

It is from Simon Peter’s fishing boat (cf. Luke 5:3) that Christ preaches to the crowds (this is significant in light of the fact that, since very early times, the Catholic Church has been widely referred to in patristic writings and religious art as the “barque” [archaic English for “boat”] of Peter. In these episodes, Peter plays a central role in the drama as usual).

In Mark 16:7 we see that the angels single Peter out among the Apostles when they tell the Holy Women to “go, tell his disciples and Peter” about the Lord’s Resurrection.

In Luke 24:33-35 we see that the risen Christ appears to Simon Peter first, before appearing to the other Apostles.

In Acts 1:15-26 it is Peter who leads the Apostles in selecting a replacement for Judas.

In Acts 3:1-9, we see St. Peter leading the infant Christian Church forward through difficult moments after the Resurrection. He is clearly the chief of the Apostles as he preaches in Acts 2 the first post-Pentecost sermon to the crowds, performs in Acts 3 the first post-Pentecost miracle and in Acts 4, with John,m turns the tables on the Jewish Sanhedrin by putting them on trial in the very setting where they intended to intimidate the Apostles.

In Acts 10, Simon Peter receives a special revelation from God that Gentiles are to be welcomed into the Church without having to follow Jewish Kosher food restrictiions or undergo circumcision. In Acts 11, he acts in the name of the Church in welcoming the first Gentile converts to be received according to this new revelation.

In Acts 15, at the Council of Jerusalem, Peter delivers the revelation pertaining to Gentile believers that causes the disputes to cease and the room to fall silent (cf. Acts 6-12). St. James, the bishop of Jerusalem, appears in a position of leadership alongside Peter. While James delivers the pastoral, disciplinary teaching (cf. Acts 13-21), it was Peter who delivered the binding doctrinal teaching. His primacy was recognized by St. Paul (who in Antioch “withstood Peter to his face” over the vexing issue of his refraining to eat with Gentiles) when he describes in Galatians 1:18 how he went to see Peter to make sure his teaching was in line with Peter’s.

[saradippity]

To quote you: "..the ROCK is always God and who GOD is.."

Now you tell me that is this case,"rock" is despair or distress. Yet,he is telling those who are just or righteous and are looking for God,to look at despair and distress and to look into a pit? Makes no sense.

Especially when the next verse says look to Abraham and Sarah. Perhaps the pit was referring to the womb,I would guess that the passages are just two ways of saying the same thing.

I will say that I think there is too much literary license in these passages exemplified by our discussion. However,I think my interpretation is more consonant with a just and merciful God trying to bring His people home.

[Campion]

While I wont argue that Aramaic was never spoken, (it probably sounded like I was, I didn't mean it to be something that I thought never happened), I will stick to my statement that Hebrew was the most common language Jesus spoke

Actually, it wasn't, but that doesn't help you anyway: the alleged "Petros/petra" pun doesn't exist in Hebrew anymore than it exists in Aramaic.

BTW, we know very well that Peter was called "Rock" in Aramaic, because the Aramaic "Kepha" (="Rock") is the origin of the name "Cephas," which is simply Kepha transliterated into Greek.

And, no, Jesus didn't call Peter a "stone". The word for stone is "lithos". "Petros" was used for small stone in classical Greek poetry, but not in the Koine Greek of the New Testament. (Matthew was probably not written originally in Greek anyway, but in Hebrew or Aramaic.) Peter was called "Petros" because Petros is the masculine-declension analogue of "petra" (=rock). Jesus couldn't have called Simon "Petra" if he'd wanted to, because petra has feminine gender and He would have effectively been giving Peter a woman's name.

[Titanites]

The doctrines of Peter being the ROCK are clearly not supported by Scripture.

Here is an intersting post submitted by Catholicguy, based on the writings of Fr. Stanley Jaki in "This Rock":

The Psalms, as already shown, were most emphatic on the point that God was Rock (Sur); that he was only Rock: and that this was why he was the only one called Rock. As the psalmist put it, common folks were mere breath, and great men but illusions. Had Jesus called Simon sur and not kepha, Andrew, John and Simon might have sensed something of a blasphemy. Being the disciple of John the Baptizer, all three had the Law and the Prophets as their staple conversation. Even if they did not learn to read the scrolls, they had learned by ear many passages from the Bible.

On hearing Jesus call Simon kepha, they were spared sensing a touch of blasphemy in Jesus' words. Yet they could hardly help also sensing the similarity between sur and kepha. Jesus' choice of kepha left Simon what he was, a mere man, while the very same name grafted on him, through its being closely synonymous with sur, something superhuman. The coexistence of human and superhuman in Simon vs the source of his spiritual drama, a drama to be continued in his often all too human successors.

Certainly, Simon was mere man. When a year or so later Jesus started his march toward Jerusalem, where Yahweh the Rock was present in a special way, to fulfill the eternal plan implied in his name "Yahweh is salvation," it was Simon, already called Rock, who remonstrated. Only a mere man could fail to derive firmness of purpose from the dazzling light in which his Master appeared only a few hours earlier in his transfiguration on the Mountain of Tabor. Simon the Rock was rebuked by being called Satan, a rebuke administered with a firmness that could only come from someone uniquely hewn out of Yahweh, the Rock.

Yet it was Simon called Rock who perceived that Christ was hewn of a divine Rock. He shared not the popular evaluation of Christ as a latter-day Elijah, or Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. To Christ's question - "and you, who do you say that I am?" - Simon, called Rock, answered: "you are the Messiah, the son of the living God." Of that God he knew that he was the Rock of Israel, the everlasting Rock. It is not difficult to guess what Simon must have felt when his name, a pledge of a new reality, was turned into a most novel and momentous reality as he heard the words which made history. They did so partly because they were cast in an unmistakably Aramaic rhythm which through its genuineness tied those words to a specific hour of history. History was to reverberate from the rhythm of the words: "Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah! No mere man has revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. I for my part declare to you, you are "Rock," and on this rock I will build my church, and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it."

In the same breath and the same unmistakable rhythm Jesus also gave the keys of the kingdom of Heaven to that Rock.

Simon was now Rock, the rock foundation of his Master's church, and not merely the carrier of the name "Rock" which the same Master gave him at the moment of their first meeting. The name obviously had a far deeper meaning than boanerges (sons of thunder), the name Jesus gave to James and John. While Yahweh thundered, he was never called "thunder" of "thunderer." Only pagan gods could be thunderers (Jupiter was one of them), sources of fright; and never, like a rock, sources of safety. Although the Twelve had their differences and disputes - they all wanted to be the first in the Kingdom of God and they all wanted the best seats there - it is unlikely that they disputed the name kepha given to Simon. If it had just been equivalent to "rocky," it would have probably prompted a joke or some taunt. Being closely synonymous with sur, the name kepha could not help but evoke in pious Jews, as all the Twelve were, a sentiment of awe and reverence.

Obviously, a name of such connotation could not be the vehicle of that disapproval which lurks behind Jesus calling James and John boanerges. This name, not at all praise worthy, was for a passing moment, whereas kepha was a name to last for the sake of everlasting praise. This everlasting perspective of kepha is also suggested by the fact that in spite of having been named and made Simon the Rock, Christ kept referring to him as Simon, son of Jonah. Such was Christ's subtle way of making it clear that as long as he was visibly present he alone was the spiritual Rock. Yet, it should seem remarkable that this subtle strategy did not make the others forget that Simon was Rock. While recalling long-past encounters between Christ and Simon, the Evangelists referred to Simon as Cephas without forgetting that Christ had addressed him as Simon. Such is an uncanny evidence of the awareness of the Evangelists that Jesus did not, in a sense, encourage the practice of referring to Simon as Cephas. He left that practice to arise from the spiritual resources of the community of the faithful he was to leave behind as lambs and sheep entrusted to Simon Peter.

Jesus' words turning Simon into Rock were pronounced "in the neighborhood of Caesarea Philippi." This was the area of the headwaters of the Jordan, the sacred river that stopped flowing so that the ark could be carried dry-shod into the Promised Land. As pious Jews, Jesus and the Twelve could not go right to the spring in that "fathomless" cavity because its very vicinity was exploited for Pan's rites. Those rites brought at times even death to some panic-stricken victims of an idolatry which could readily issue in unbridled debauchery. Such rites were the fearful encroachment of death on the sacred river at its very source, a source which provided the water for Jesus' baptism, the prototype of the rite by which the power of Satan is broken. Standing at a distance, Jesus and the Twelve must have been impressed by the massive wall of rock rising over the source of the Jordan. Here was a sacred river taking its origin through an opening in a massive wall of rock, an opening which could evoke the wide-open jaws of death - both spiritual and physical death. Against this backdrop Jesus spoke to Simon: "You are Rock and on this rock I will build my church, and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it." To echo such words called for a wall of rock.

That such was the background will not appear mere conjecture if one is ready to go by Matthew's instruction to "the neighborhood of Caesarea Phillipi." as that that very background. It will appear even less of a conjecture if one recalls Jesus' fondness for choosing appropriate backdrops for his words. Jason's ancient and hallowed well at Sichem heard his words about living waters which only he could give. The feast of the tabernacles with its torches, heard the declaration that he was the light of the world. The ripening harvest heard his urging that the Master of the harvest be asked to send more harvesters into it, for the work to be done was immense in proportion to the number of workers. The little child whom he called over was visible demonstration to his adult apostles that unless they became like little children they were not to enter the Kingdom of God.

Jesus never did anything without planning. He said only what he wanted. He did only what he intended. His enemies’ plans could not be fulfilled until his hour had come. He went to Jerusalem only when it was appropriate for his purposes. His enemies could not lay their hands on him until he handed himself over to them...

He certainly knew that being called Rock (sur) was a most sacred privilege of Yahweh through the entire Old Testament. If anyone, he knew what was implied in calling Simon, a mere man, kepha or Rock, a word closely synonymous with sur. He certainly knew how much more was implied in turning that mere man into the Rock on which he would build his church with a stability that was haring in the permanence of Yahweh himself.

Knowing all this, and being "in the neighborhood of Caesarea Phillipi, Jesus would not have been faithful to his pedagogy if he had not chosen that massive wall of rock as the backdrop for his historic words "upon this rock."

[Titanites]

The Bible nowhere grants Peter any authority that is not also given to the other disciples.

Here is another post, this one from Aquinasfan:

In Isaiah 22, we see the existence of the historical office of the vice-regent (vice-king) of the kingdom of David. In the king's absence, the vice-regent held full plenary authority. As a sign of his authority, the vice-regent wore a pouch around his neck which contained a key --the key to the kingdom.

In the passage from Isaiah, we see this office being transferred from Shebna to Eliakim:

Isaiah 22:20-23
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will be a seat of honor for the house of his father.

Jesus is the eternal king of the House of David who is the power behind the keys. Revelation 3:7

These are the words of him who is holy and true [Jesus], who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

When Jesus gives Peter the "keys to the kingdom," he is placing Peter in the office of vice-regent of the eternal House of David, Christ's Church:
Matthew 16:18-19

I tell you that you are Rock (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.”

[RaceBannon]

No, I posted the Greek for the word stone, so, you missed it there.

And if I remember correctly, the Douay agrees with me.

[wallcrawlr]

Yep, Peter was a pretty special man.

But didnt Jesus reference John as his favorite?

[RaceBannon]

Yes, it does, God speaks that way many times, he is not telling them to TRUST the rock they are hewn to, He is telling them to be ashamed at the rock they are hewn to, the sin of their nation, the predicament they are in because of their national sin.

[RaceBannon]

My Asst Pastor's response by e-mail:

Aramaic was the commonly spoken language of Palestine in the time of
Christ, and it was very similar to Hebrew.

Greek was the common language of the empire, and most Jews also knew
Greek.

Latin was the official language, since the Romans were in power.

Hence, the superscription on the cross was in three languages: Hebrew
(or Aramaic), Greek and Latin.

George Zeller
Check out our website:
www.middletownbiblechurch.org

I already posted the page that said this in detail.

I was wrong!

[InterestedQuestioner]

Race,

Speaking about things that aren't in the bible, has your assistant pastor been able to formulate a statement on salvation for you to believe in? I'm still waiting for a concise, complete, and well organized summary of your theory of salvation doctrine, so that I can check to see if it's in the bible or not. Have you found the three minutes it would take to type that up? You've claimed that Catholics are not Christians, that they worship a fall Jesus, and that Catholics "re-write" scripture. Since your claim that one and a half billion Catholics are not Christians apparently rests on your authoritative understanding of Salvation doctrine, I'm quite eager to see it. And again Race, no 15 page email is required, nor a long list of scriptures that you feel imply your view. Just put your opinion in your own words, one or two paragraphs should do the trick, and I will be happy to request scripture support if I find it lacking.

[InterestedQuestioner]

Excuse my typo. Your comment was that Catholics worship a false Jesus.

[Titanites]

The Lord Jesus and the apostles quoted from the LXX

What books are in the Septuagint, which was referenced by Jesus, compared to the books in the OT version you and your assistant pastor use?

[RaceBannon]

I'd have to look that up, dont know it off the top of my head

But the KJV is translated from the Masoretic Text, if you already know the differences, that is the one to compare it to.

[Paul C. Jesup]

When the names of all the Apostles are listed, Peter is always first. Judas Iscariot, the Lord’s traitor, is always listed last

This says more about who complied the Bible together in Ancient Rome than what is says about the Apostles themselves.

[NYer]

This says more about who complied the Bible together in Ancient Rome than what is says about the Apostles themselves.

Actually, the authors of the Bible set down facts ... not necessarily the type of information that would appeal to us today. They were writing for their audience, 2000 years ago. The Catholic Church has always taught that to read Scripture, one must evaluate it in the context of the author, the time frame and the audience. They wrote from personal experience and obviously stressed the fact that Christ used the question "Who do you say that I am?" as a major turning point. This discourse occured just before the Last Supper. Christ used that question to learn to whom His Father had entrusted the truth. That loaded question supplied the answer. If our Lord, Jesus Christ, acknowledged Peter, then who are we to question it.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Actually, the authors of the Bible set down facts ... not necessarily the type of information that would appeal to us today. They were writing for their audience, 2000 years ago. The Catholic Church has always taught that to read Scripture, one must evaluate it in the context of the author, the time frame and the audience. They wrote from personal experience and obviously stressed the fact that Christ used the question "Who do you say that I am?" as a major turning point. This discourse occured just before the Last Supper. Christ used that question to learn to whom His Father had entrusted the truth. That loaded question supplied the answer. If our Lord, Jesus Christ, acknowledged Peter, then who are we to question it.

They listed the Apostles in the exact same order everytime they were listed. Please, it doesn't take genius to realize that the Church at the time edited and re-ordered what it didn't like.

[NYer]

IT IS GOD that is the Pillar and ground of truth

Jesus said his Church would be "the light of the world." He then noted that "a city set on a hill cannot be hid" (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization. It must have characteristics that clearly identify it and that distinguish it from other churches. Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return.

Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The Protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. (Most of today’s Protestant churches are actually offshoots of the original Protestant offshoots.)

Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history.

Even the oldest government is new compared to the papacy, and the churches that send out door-to-door missionaries are young compared to the Catholic Church. Many of these churches began as recently as the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Some even began during your own lifetime. None of them can claim to be the Church Jesus established.

The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. It must be more than a merely human organization, especially considering that its human members— even some of its leaders—have been unwise, corrupt, or prone to heresy.

Any merely human organization with such members would have collapsed early on. The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with a billion members: one sixth of the human race), and that is testimony not to the cleverness of the Church’s leaders, but to the protection of the Holy Spirit.

Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth

[NYer]

I am reading the Bible and taking it at it's word, that's all.

From this statement, I take it that you have been trained in Koine Geek and Aramaic, the languages used to compile the original texts of the Bible as we know it. Surely then, you can sympathize with my pastor who is fluent in 8 languages and trained to interpret the ancient texts in their original languages of - Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek and Latin. Excellent! At a recent gospel study, we read a certain gospel text and then were asked to give our opinions. Before doing so, Father reread the text out loud but hesitated on a certain English phrase. He ruffled his brow and resorted to the original Koine Greek text, explaining that the translation was valid but lacked the proper emphasis. He then attempted to find a word in English to qualify the 'tone' of the author's original Koine Greek text. This is what you do too, right?

[RaceBannon]

I'd say the danger is in asking people to interpret it, or give their opinion.

If there is a better word, that is one thing, but there can be only ONE interpretation if it is read right.

That is why sentence diagramming is important, and that is why context is important and that is why previous useage of words and context matter.

And that is why Peter and Rock are not compatable. :) Peter and Rock fail all those tests. And that is not opinion. It is previous usage of the word, it is sentance structure, it is context of the passage.

Only GOD is the Rock in all Biblical passages where the Rock is used to denote a spiritual meaning, never a man.

and theone passage earlier someone posted where rock was used to denote a situation, if rock there was Abraham, so is the hole in the ground. And if rock there is Abraham, then who is the hole in the ground?

rock in that passage in Isaiah had to be a situation that Israel was in. Context, context, context.

[GipperGal]

From this statement, I take it that you have been trained in Koine Geek and Aramaic, the languages used to compile the original texts of the Bible as we know it.

Now wait just a darn minute there, missy! Everybody knows Jesus spoke English. Why it's right there in bible all in red letters!

[NYer]

That is why sentence diagramming is important, and that is why context is important and that is why previous useage of words and context matter.

Sentence diagramming has absolutely nothing to do with what Christ said. He delivered His words in Aramaic which were transcribed into Koine Greek. His words hold meaning and His disciples understood Him.

2000 years down the road, the only trustworthy 'understanding' of His words comes from the original text.

Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Sola Scriptura is how it should be interpreted.