The Petrine Fact, Part 6: And Upon This Rock (ground zero in the Petrine controversy)

NOTE: This series is a work in progress. See Part 1 updates including bibliography in progress. As I add sources and update past posts I will continue to expand the bibliography.

We have arrived at ground zero in the Petrine controversy, one of the most bitterly disputed texts in all of sacred scripture. Here the Petrine fact looms most intractably and prominently, resisting all attempts to smooth it over or roll it aside. It is a sad irony that the rock to which Jesus attached such importance has become a stone of stumbling for so many, just as the primacy of Rome, for some an icon, almost a sacrament, of unity, has become a source of division.

At the same time, there have been encouraging developments. There is now near unanimity in Bible scholarship generally, Protestant as well as Catholic, that the rock on which Jesus builds his church is neither Peter's confession, nor the faith of Peter's confession, nor the truth that Peter confesses about Christ, nor Christ himself, but Peter himself.

Among the chorus of Evangelical and Protestant voices in this regard, as I will document eventually, are F. F. Bruce, D. A. Carson, Walter Elwell, R. T. France, Herman Ridderbos and Craig Blomberg. Thus Chrys C. Caragounis writes: "After centuries of disagreement it would appear that Protestant and Catholic are at last united in referring the rock upon which the Church according to Mt 16:18 is to be built, to the Apostle Peter" (Caragounis 1).

Ironically, Caragounis, an Eastern Orthodox scholar, makes a contrarian case for identifying the rock as Peter's confession. In Orthodox scholarship, too, there has been movement toward recognizing Peter himself as the rock. Orthodox theologian Theodore Stylianopoulos, after surveying recent developments in Orthodox scholarship, writes:

The pericope begins in Matthew 16:13, in which Jesus asks the Twelve what people are saying about him, and receives a number of different answers: John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.

Then comes the crucial question: "But who do you say I am?" As often elsewhere, Peter speaks up for the Twelve: "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

The next three verses are a remarkable composition, well capable of bearing all the critical scrutiny they have received. Here is Jesus' reply in full:

The above blocking highlights a point made by Jimmy Akin (I haven't seen it developed in this form by anyone else) regarding the three-part structure of each of the three verses. Each verse starts with a major or leading clause, followed by a supporting couplet, the two clauses of which jointly illuminate and expound upon the major clause.

What is more, in each of the three leading clauses, Jesus both addresses Peter and makes a pronouncement regarding Peter: "1. Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jona! … 2. And I tell you, you are Petros … 3. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." As we will see, each of these pronouncements is in some way unparalleled; each is extraordinary in itself, and all three together are an astonishing manifesto on Peter's behalf.

It is not surprising, then, that each of the three major Petrine pronouncements is followed by a couplet illuminating or commenting upon what Jesus has just said to Peter and about Peter. This is so clear that no one denies this in the first or third verses; everyone recognizes that "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you / but my Father who is in heaven" is a commentary on "Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jona", and that "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven / and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" is a commentary on "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven."

Yet sandwiched between those two verses is a verse that follows precisely the same pattern, yet here the pattern has historically been contested by some. It has been argued that "On this rock I will build my church / and the powers of death shall not prevail against it" is not a commentary on "I tell you, you are Petros"; that after saying "You are Petros," Jesus in effect changes the subject from the previous thought, merely punning on Petros in order to talk about some quite distinct petra — only to return to Peter in the following verse.

Start at the beginning. Jesus opens with an unparalleled benediction: "Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jona!" Nowhere else in the Gospels does Jesus pronounce such a blessing on any individual; Peter aside, people are pronounced blessed by Jesus only in groups or classes, in the abstract, or both. To find this singular beatitude at the outset of this crucial Petrine text is itself a notable token of the Petrine fact.

Jesus then goes on to expound upon the benediction of this first remarkable clause in a supporting couplet clarifying Peter's beatitude: "For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you / but my Father who is in heaven." Peter's beatitude is not something he achieved himself; it is the gift of the Father.

It must be remembered, too, that the blessing is counter-balanced six verses by the equally singular rebuke, "Get behind me, Satan!" (or "Get behind me, you satan!"). Most of Jesus' maledictions, like his blessings, are aimed at groups ("Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites," Matt 23:13ff), and even Herod was only called a fox (Luke 13:32). Peter alone is called by that harsh word, adversary, that denotes the enemy of mankind.

Once again, then, the point is not that Peter was personally uniquely holy or favored only in positive ways; he wasn't. Rather, the point is simply Peter's unique prominence, partly rooted perhaps in his own qualities for good and for ill, but also bound up in Jesus' own choice, resulting in unique privileges but also unique chastenings. "Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required" (Luke 12:48): Peter is singularly blessed and singularly chastised; in either case his position is unique.

Then comes the second leading clause: "And I say to you, you are Petros." The first word, kagõ (a contraction of "And I"), is emphatic (the Greek doesn't require the explicit first-personal pronoun); Jesus underscores that it is he, the Messiah confessed by Peter, who speaks. Jesus may also be counterpointing his own words to the Father's gift to Peter; the Father has revealed Jesus' identity to Peter, and now it is the Son's turn to reveal something to Peter.

"You are Petros." Peter has told Jesus who he is ("You are the Messiah"); now Jesus tells Peter who he is. Is this merely declarative, or performative? Is Jesus making an observation, or giving Peter his new name here and now?

John 1:42 relates Jesus telling Peter at their first meeting, "You will be called Kephas," a saying that could be read as either as an enactment or as a proleptic or prophetic utterance (the future tense could mean either "from this point forward" or "at some point in the future"). In Mark 3 the list of the Twelve begins "Simon whom he surnamed Peter," but ends with "Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him" (Mark 3:15-19). Obviously Judas has not already betrayed Jesus in chapter 3; by the same token, we cannot conclude that Jesus has already surnamed Simon Peter at that point in the narrative.

The Evangelists all use the name Peter early on. In fact, John 1 refers to "Simon Peter" in verse 40, before Jesus and Peter have even met, and Matthew likewise identifies the apostle as "Simon who is called Peter" (Matt 4:18) the moment Jesus sees him, before they have spoken. It is reasonable to conclude that the Gospels use the name Peter from the start because that is the name readers know him by; it doesn't tell us when he first began to go by that name.

Other than John 1:42, then, there is no clear evidence of Jesus or anyone else calling Peter Kephas or Petros prior to Matthew 16:18. On the contrary, what evidence we have suggests that Jesus continued to use the name Simon (e.g., Matt 17:25, Mark 14:37, Luke 22:31, John 21:15, the late exception being Luke 22:34). The question, then, is whether Jesus' words to Peter at their meeting — "You will be called Kephas" — are grounds for concluding that henceforth the apostle began to be known by that surname.

It seems an open question. It's possible that Jesus and others began to call Simon Kephas right away, or that the surname caught on at some other point prior to Matthew 16. The Gospels offer scant evidence either way.

On the one hand, there is no indication in John 1 that anyone but Andrew heard the saying; if Jesus himself continued to use Simon's given name, it seems plausible that Peter's brother (and business partners James and John), who had always called him Simon, would similarly continue to call him the name they had always used. On the other hand, it's also plausible that Andrew might at least have told James and John about the strange saying, so that eventually all the Twelve would know the story, and Simon might start to be known as Kephas or Petros without another word from Jesus after John 1:42.

What seems certain is that Matthew 16 describes an event that would certainly have caused the surname to stick if it hadn't already. Not only is it an emphatic, present-tense pronouncement before all the Twelve, the occasion of Peter's confession is the sort of circumstance that elicits surnames from rabbis and other authorities. (For example, Barnabas, Son of Encouragement, was the surname given to Joseph of Cyprus by the apostles in Acts 4:36, possibly in connection with the act described in the next verse, i.e., laying at the apostles' feet the money from the sale of his field. Certainly he was not surnamed Barnabas out of the blue.)

It is also worth noting that the structure of verse 18 is notably similar to the texts in Genesis in which Abram, Sarai and Jacob receive their new names, followed by an exposition of the significance of the new name:

The parallels are most striking in the case of Abraham and Sarah, where the commentary takes the form of an account of the inaugural role they will have in the new stage of God's plan of salvation. Jacob's name change also seems generally indicative of his election for the new stage in God's plan (though this point isn't explicitly drawn out in the commentary on the name).

If Jesus is not effectively renaming Peter in Matthew 16, he seems to be doing something remarkably similar. At the very least, even if Peter already went by his surname, the renewed pronouncement of the surname, in the solemn and emphatic context of the passage, seems to invest it with further significance — significance that almost goes beyond a mere surname, that is more like a new identity and a new mission. (It may even be worth noting here that Jacob's new name Israel is also given twice, in Gen 32:28 and again in Gen 35:10 — and that even after both renamings Israel also continues to be called Jacob both by the sacred writer and even by God, e.g., Gen 46:2-5, etc.)

All of this suggests that the pronouncement of Peter's new name reflects a new role in Jesus' messianic plan, one that seems to call for further explication. As previously noted, efforts have been made, especially in the past, to deny that "upon this rock" constitutes such commentary, to argue that it must refer to some distinct petra. Not until verse 19, on this reading, does Jesus say more about Peter's new role. The effect seems not unlike revising Genesis 17:5-6 to read, "No longer shall your name be Abram [exalted father], but your name shall be Abraham [father of a multitude], and I the Lord shall be exalted among the nations, and a father to my people. And I will make you exceedingly fruitful…"

If "this rock" is not Peter, what is it? There's the rub. Literarily, the demonstrative pronoun "this" implies an antecedent. Some older Protestant writers tried to float the notion that Jesus might have gestured toward himself as he said "this rock" — an exegetical conceit that would reduce Matthew's purpose to merely relating dialogue without conveying meaning (not to mention being difficult to reconcile with sola scriptura, for what that's worth). In the absence of other indication, the Gospel text clearly indicates a continuation of thought, not a change of subject.

The conjunction "and" (kai) links the second clause ("upon this rock") to the main clause ("I say to you, you are Petros"). Peter is the topic of the preceding and following verses. The connection between Petros and petra is unmistakable; even on the theory that Jesus was merely punning on Petros but talking about something else, the pun itself presupposes that Petros is the first thing we think of when we hear petra.

Petros, then, is the obvious antecedent, petra the obvious continuation of thought between "You are Petros" and "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Only if there were some insurmountable obstacle to identifying Petros as petra would it be feasible to set aside that connection and cast about for more remote, less obvious possible referents: Peter's confession, Peter's faith, the truth about Christ, Christ himself.

The next post will examine proposed obstacles to identifying Peter as the rock, as well as difficulties with alternate proposals. More to come.

NOTE: This series is a work in progress. See Part 1 updates including bibliography in progress. As I add sources and update past posts I will continue to expand the bibliography.

I’m a bit surprised at some of this article actually...Jimmy is usually very sharp and very careful but there are some strange things here. As to his statement that the Rock is not Peter’s Confession, well, I’ve read direct quotes from the Fathers who said otherwise. So who are we to dispute them?

My favorite exegetical way to look at Peter’s role lies in comparing the grant of authority in Matt 16 with Matt 18. It seems very deliberate here. The apostles are granted authority corporately in Matt 18 and it is the same authority that Peter individually is granted in Matt 16. That juxtaposition is interesting.

At the risk of becoming a broken record bringing up Met. Zizioulas for the umpteenth time, I really do like his formulation of no council without a protos, and no protos without a council, but the two always united. That really seems to be hitting at the essence of St. Matthew’s juxtaposition.

“Jesus is the head of the Church, and Peter is the steward, given the keys to the kingdom while the King is away.”

Odd. “These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you...it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.”

Why do you think God is away? Could this be why some church fathers called the Holy Spirit the ‘Vicar of Christ’?

Thank you for your Scriptural response, as always, Mr R.

Why can't we all just state the obvious instead of going back and forth over this same issue time after time? Nyer and others post articles like these to try to prove that the Roman Catholic is the only true church. They trot out the Peter as rock and therefore the first pope dogma so that they can "prove" the apostolic succession to the current pope. By stating this, they can then say that whatever the popes have determined as doctrine through the ages, they can confidently accept as truth because Jesus gave the keys to Peter and his successors and they are infallible.

I highly doubt most protestant theologians have accepted this as true, because there are many doctrines the RCC has decreed that are NOT scriptural and even contradict Scripture. When called on this, they fall back on the easy answer of that's your interpretation and the Catholic Church GAVE you the Bible nonsense. What is the point?

***Hmmmmmm ..... those Protestants are like the Terminator aren’t they!***

Do you mean that Protestants are evil machines that kill human beings indiscriminately simply because they are humans? Do you mind if I get the popcorn before you peel your skin off to reveal your metal skeleton and glowing eyes?

LOL,

No, I mean that, just like the Terminator would never stay down when the heroes of the movie thought he was destroyed, Protestants are not likely to give up their beliefs, just because the Author of the article states that "near unanimity" now exists.

LOL, I don't mind waiting for you to get the popcorn, but I must warn you, that to peel of my skin, I would have to peel off my clothes, and you DON'T want to see that .... trust me on this.

Metal skeleton .... Hmmm, could that be the cause of my stiff back when I get up in the mornings?

Glowing eyes? ...... I'll have check tonight after I turn out the lights to go to sleep, and get back to you on that one.

Another point you have made before on other threads - God can be very specific, as when he instituted the Levitical Priesthood. Yet in giving Peter authority as Vicar of Christ, he was...well, exceedingly indirect, wasn’t he?

Shoot, even Peter didn’t know!

The whole idea of Papal Supremacy comes down to Jesus saying, “But who do you say that I am?”

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

Jesus then says, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

That is it. One sentence, and he doesn’t even say, “You are number one among the Apostles.” Yet from this I am supposed to believe that B16 is the “Vicar of Christ” while God is away...since the Holy Spirit is OBVIOUSLY incompetent.

***Why do you think God is away?***

The whole deal of the Ascension in which Jesus is taken away up to Heaven and promises to return is significant. The Holy Spirit, which He promises to send, does not actually arrive until Pentecost. Peter and the Apostles are bereft and very afraid. The Holy Spirit arrives at Pentecost and Peter takes charge and leads the Apostles into the future of the Church.

So; what does all this mean? The Holy Spirit is not a physical form and works through men. Jesus was physical and acted in person. And, Jesus set up his own Church and instructed (rather laboriously) his Apostles to carry out His instruction.

***Could this be why some church fathers called the Holy Spirit the ‘Vicar of Christ’?***

Yes. The term Vicar means substitute or somebody who acts in the place of somebody higher ranking. In other words, the man who acts for Christ in the celebration of the Mass or other capacity while waiting for Him to return.

***Do you mean that Protestants are evil machines that kill human beings indiscriminately simply because they are humans? Do you mind if I get the popcorn before you peel your skin off to reveal your metal skeleton and glowing eyes?

LOL,

I don’t think that near unanimity exists. I believe!!! that the bulk of Protestants are headed down the path of the Unitarians simply because they do not have a ground or a basis for their beliefs.

***LOL, I don’t mind waiting for you to get the popcorn, but I must warn you, that to peel of my skin, I would have to peel off my clothes, and you DON’T want to see that .... trust me on this.***

I trust you and ask you to trust me back as well

I think that there is either an objective basis (ie the Church) or a subjective basis (ie the individual) for moral guidance. The problem with a subjective basis is that it can move according to the emotion or whim of the individual, whereas the objective basis (ie the 10 Commandments) is set and cannot be changed according to whether or not your wife loves you today.

Claud, the following is from +Augustine's Sermon #295, given on the Feast Day of Sts. Peter and Paul. I have added the underlining for emphasis. For the record, he echoes this verbage in his Tractate on the Gospel of John, at 124.5...

Today the Holy Church piously remembers the sufferings of the Holy Glorious and All-Praised Apostles Peter and Paul.

St. Peter, the fervent follower of Jesus Christ, for the profound confession of His Divinity: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God,” was deemed worthy by the Savior to hear in answer, “Blessed art thou, Simon … I tell thee, that thou art Peter [Petrus], and on this stone [petra] I build My Church” (Mt.16:16-18). On “this stone” [petra], is on that which thou sayest: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God” it is on this thy confession I build My Church. Wherefore the “thou art Peter”: it is from the “stone” [petra] that Peter [Petrus] is, and not from Peter [Petrus] that the “stone” [petra] is, just as the Christian is from Christ, and not Christ from the Christian. Do you want to know, from what sort of “rock” [petra] the Apostle Peter [Petrus] was named? Hear the Apostle Paul: “Brethren, I do not want ye to be ignorant,” says the Apostle of Christ, “how all our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ” (1 Cor.10: 1-4). Here is the stone, from whence the “Rock” is Peter.

Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the final days of His earthly life, in the days of His mission to the race of man, chose from among the disciples His twelve Apostles to preach the Word of God. Among them, the Apostle Peter for his fiery ardor was vouchsafed to occupy the first place (Mt.10:2) and to be as it were the representative person for all the Church. Therefore it is said to him, preferentially, after the confession: “I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in the heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth: shall be loosed in heaven” (Mt.16: 19). Therefore it was not one man, but rather the One Universal Church, that received these “keys” and the right “to bind and loosen.” And that it was actually the Church that received this right, and not exclusively a single person, turn your attention to another place of the Scriptures, where the same Lord says to all His Apostles, “Receive ye the Holy Spirit” and further after this, “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them: and whose soever sins ye retain, are retained” (John 20: 22-23); or: “whatsoever ye bind upon the earth, shall be bound in Heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosened in heaven” (Mt.18:18). Thus, it is the Church that binds, the Church that loosens; the Church, built upon the foundational cornerstone, Jesus Christ Himself (Eph 2:20), doth bind and loosen. Let both the binding and the loosening be feared: the loosening, in order not to fall under this again; the binding, in order not to remain forever in this condition. Therefore “Iniquities ensnare a man, and everyone is bound in the chains of his own sins,” says Wisdom (Prov 5:22); and except for Holy Church nowhere is it possible to receive the loosening.

Ah, Yudan, never mind, I think Mr Rogers posted the passage you were probably talking about.

Actually, Mr Rogers, Augustine tended to wax allegorical and offer sometimes competing explanations of passages. He said this also:

"Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church." Christian Combat, 31:33(A.D. 397), in JUR,3:51

And later in life he even acknowledged that he had offered competing explanations of this passage:

"[In my first book against Donatus] I mentioned somewhere with reference to the apostle Peter that 'the Church is founded upon him as upon a rock.' This meaning is also sung by many lips in the lines of blessed Ambrose, where, speaking of the domestic cock, he says: 'When it crows, he, the rock of the Church, absolves from sin.' But I realize that I have since frequently explained the words of our Lord: 'Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church', to the effect that they should be understood as referring to him Peter confessed when he said: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God', and as meaning that Peter having been named after this rock, figured the person of the Church, which is built upon this rock and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For what was said to him was not 'Thou art rock', but 'Thou art Peter'. But the rock was Christ, having confessed whom(even as the whole Church confesses) Simon was named Peter. Which of these interpretations is more likely to be correct, let the reader choose."

Let the reader choose. This is why I don't think that exegetes can exclude Peter himself or Peter's Confession or even Christ from consideration as the "Rock" here. Granted, I think Augustine's second explanation is a little tortured and mangles the grammatical force of the passage in pursuit of a dubious allegory, but then again he's St. Augustine and I'm not. :)

Well, Augustine is a complicated case. As I quoted above, he also expressed the opinion that Peter himself was the Rock.

Let's address this:

On “this stone” [petra], is on that which thou sayest: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God” it is on this thy confession I build My Church. Wherefore the “thou art Peter”: it is from the “stone” [petra] that Peter [Petrus] is, and not from Peter [Petrus] that the “stone” [petra] is,

Why this would be taken as an argument against the Petrine Office is strange to me. Everyone admits (or at least should) that Peter is not *the sole Rock* but a Rock only in the sense of *sharing* the Rockhood of Christ. That is only obvious, and it is explicitly laid out in Ephesians 2:20. Christ the ultimate foundation, then the Apostles and prophets on top of that. So of course Peter's rock-like nature comes from Christ, and not Christ's from Peter. That's self-evident.

Therefore it was not one man, but rather the One Universal Church, that received these “keys” and the right “to bind and loosen.” And that it was actually the Church that received this right, and not exclusively a single person, turn your attention to another place of the Scriptures

This one requires a bit of grammatical digging. At first blush it looks like Augustine is denying that the authority was given to Peter himself.

Upon close study, I don't think that's what's going on. Remember, Augustine just finished saying that Peter was "the representative for all the Church". So at the very least he receiving the authority *as its representative*. So I think that we can plausibly read an "only" in the middle of that line: Therefore it was not ONLY one man, but rather the One Universal Church, that received these “keys”. Now look at the next line: "And that it was actually the Church that received this right, and not exclusively a single person,". Not *exclusively* a single person but the Church, which has Peter as its representative.

What I'm driving at here is I don't think Augustine is saying that Peter didn't receive the authority. He is just saying that Peter didn't receive the authority ALONE but received it *as the representative of the Universal Church*.

There's another quote from Sermon #295 that would come into play here, but I am having trouble finding a reliable version of it and the exact wording will be important. I want to get it right, so I'll keep looking.

***Where is Peter and I wrong? BVB*** Peter isn’t. And neither are you, in this context. Jesus is the petros and Peter is the petra. Jesus is the head of the Church, and Peter is the steward, given the keys to the kingdom while the King is away. The steward rules the kingdom in the Name of the King. Some rule well - Peter. Some rule ill - Denethor in Gondor comes to mind.

Mark, You have missed the thrust of this series. It has one purpose and one purpose only. Make Peter the rock the church is built on. From this segment;

At the same time, there have been encouraging developments. There is now near unanimity in Bible scholarship generally, Protestant as well as Catholic, that the rock on which Jesus builds his church is neither Peter's confession, nor the faith of Peter's confession, nor the truth that Peter confesses about Christ, nor Christ himself, but Peter himself.

Among the chorus of Evangelical and Protestant voices in this regard, as I will document eventually, are F. F. Bruce, D. A. Carson, Walter Elwell, R. T. France, Herman Ridderbos and Craig Blomberg. Thus Chrys C. Caragounis writes: "After centuries of disagreement it would appear that Protestant and Catholic are at last united in referring the rock upon which the Church according to Mt 16:18 is to be built, to the Apostle Peter" (Caragounis 1).

Ironically, Caragounis, an Eastern Orthodox scholar, makes a contrarian case for identifying the rock as Peter's confession. In Orthodox scholarship, too, there has been movement toward recognizing Peter himself as the rock. Orthodox theologian Theodore Stylianopoulos, after surveying recent developments in Orthodox scholarship, writes:

That Orthodox scholars have gradually moved in the direction of affirming the personal application of Matt 16:17-19 to the Apostle Peter must be applauded. From the standpoint of critical scholarship it can no longer be disputed that Jesus' words to Peter as reported in Matt 16:17-19 confer a special distinction on Peter as "rock" — the foundation on which Christ promised to build his Church. … These points are now conceded by conservative Protestant scholars as well. (Kasper 48-49)

Peter was given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven as have all who believe. They have no authority on earth.

Your king might be away but mine is with me always through His Spirit. I have no need for a steward. Nor do you. BVB

“Well, I’m not entirely certain that Mr. R and I would agree on everything...”

Shoot - my WIFE and I don’t agree on everything! That’s why I have 3 dogs. At any given time, at least one of them will agree with me. Particularly when I’m holding their food bowls...

My understanding (slim, since I admittedly don’t spend a lot of time reading Augustine) is that he considered Peter a type, and what he received, he did so on behalf of all bishops.

Some Protestants view it that way, some broaden it to all believers, and some restrict it to the Apostles. I tend to be one of those who broaden it a bit, and say Peter received it on behalf of all the church, to use as led by the Holy Spirit. I’m not dogmatic on it, apart from seeing no indication it meant Peter and Peter’s ‘successors’ alone. That just seems silly.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.