Matthew 16: Catholic vs. Protestant

The primacy of Peter is perhaps one of the strongest points of contention between Catholics and non-Catholics today. Since the Protestant Reformation in the 16^th Century, a plethora of interpretations have developed surrounding the famous passage of Matthew 16:18-19, where Christ declares that Peter is the “rock” upon which He will found His Church and is the one to whom He will give the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.” While the Catholic Church has consistently interpreted this passage to be a declaration of Peter’s primacy over the other Apostles, many non-Catholic Christians view this passage from a decidedly different perspective. It is on some of the more prominent perspectives among these that this paper will focus its attention.

Matthew 16

“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. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”[1]

As Peter is the rock upon which the Church of Christ is built, so too is this passage the rock upon which Catholic teaching is built, particularly with regard to papal authority. Peter alone is declared to be the foundation of the Church, indicating that he bears a certain primacy over the other apostles. His reception of the “keys” similarly indicates a unique authoritative character in dispensing or retaining the blessings of heaven. The implication of this primacy is that the other apostles only possess the power of the keys insofar as they are united to Peter. Simply speaking, without the foundation, the edifice collapses.

According to the biblical commentaries of Dr. Scott Hahn, the symbol of the keys is significant in that it evokes the image of gates. Peter is therefore commissioned by Christ to be heaven’s gatekeeper. Dr. Hahn elaborates on this when he says that, “The plural use of keys may imply a connection with the ‘gates’ in 16:18 and mean that Peter’s position includes, among other things, the authority to release the righteous souls who are detained in Hades but destined for heaven.”[2]

One critically important element of Matthew 16, which helps us to more fully understand it meaning, is the fact that it is the first place in the New Testament where the Greek word “Ecclesia” (church) appears.[3] Elsewhere in the New Testament, the “ecclesia” is described as “the house of God” (1 Timothy 3:15), and the “holy temple” (Ephesians 2:21). Thus, Peter is the foundation of the house of God; the rock of His holy temple. This temple imagery is significant in light of its connection with the Davidic kingdom of the Old Testament. In the ancient Davidic kingdom:

“The king appointed a cabinet of ministers for specific tasks in the kingdom (1 Kings 4:1-6; 2 Kings 18:37). Of these, a prime minister was elevated to unique status of authority, ranking second only to the king … In Matthew, Jesus is the new Davidic king, who appoints Peter the prime minister over the kingdom of heaven in the Church.”[4]

Dr. Hahn goes on to say that the office of Peter is similar to that of the Old Testament prime minister in that his office is handed down through a consistent line of successors. Thus, the office of Peter is intended to last through the ages. This happens via Apostolic succession, which is the passing on of the apostolic office to an ordained successor. While implicated here in this passage from Matthew, evidence of apostolic succession can also be found in Act 1:23-26, where Matthias is chosen to replace Judas as an apostle. If the betrayer of Christ was given a successor, it is not unreasonable to presume that the foundation of the Church should be given a successor as well, in addition to the rest of the apostles. Moreover, there is ample evidence from the writings of the early Fathers to support this claim.

Pope Clement I writes in 80 A.D. that “Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry”[5]

In 189, St. Irenaeus further clarifies that, “we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times.”[6]

The Primacy of Peter

In view of the preceding statement as well as many others, it is clear that the early Christians took the primacy of Peter and the existence of apostolic succession as a given. They were fully aware of these two realities and of their significance in the life and operation of the Church. It was not until the emergence of Protestantism in the 16^th Century that that the primacy of the pope and the apostolic succession of the bishops was seriously called into question. Today, one wonders if the questioning will ever cease.

Among the various arguments against the primacy of peter that have arisen over the centuries, one of the more prominent is that Peter is not the rock that Christ was referring to in Matthew 16. This has to do with the subtle differences in the Greek words, “petros” and “petra.” As Presbyterian pastor, Brian Schwertley describes, “Christ used two different words: ‘You are Petros (a rock) and upon this Petra (a cliff or solid rock) I will build my Church’. It is essential to note that the masculine petros denotes a detached rock or boulder, and that the feminine petra signifies a rocky cliff.”[7] Brian’s main point of contention here is with the Catholic understanding that Peter and “the rock” are the same.

In a similar vein, Karlfried Froehlich argues that, “Christ did not say to Peter: ‘you are the rock,’ but ‘you are Peter.’ The church is not built upon Peter but upon the only true rock, Christ.”[8] He goes on to claim that various regions of the early and medieval Christian Church had different ways of interpreting the passage from Matthew, thus rendering the standard Catholic interpretation of today to be false and historically inconsistent.

One does not require an advanced degree in biblical theology to recognize the flaws inherent within the arguments of Brian and Karlfried here. What Brian’s argument fails to realize is that Christ is most likely speaking Aramaic in the passage of Matthew, meaning that He used the word “kepha,” rather than “petros” when speaking to Peter. Even the Protestant scholar, William Hendriksen recognizes this fact when we writes that, “Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, ‘And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.’ Jesus then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his Church on him!”[9]

Some Christians may suggest that since the writer of Matthew’s Gospel wrote in Greek, he would have chosen the words “petros” and “petra” in order to convey a deliberate point about what Christ actually meant when he referred to Peter as “kepha.” Perhaps the language of Aramaic was limited in its terminology and the writer of Matthew took it upon himself to clarify the meaning of Christ’s words with more precise Greek terminology. This theory immediately breaks down when examined by yet another Protestant theologian, Frank Gaebelein, who writes that while, “it is true that petros and petra can mean ‘stone’ and ‘rock’ respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (you are kepha and on this kepha), since the word was used both for a name and for a rock.”[10]

Even according to various Protestant sources therefore, the standard Catholic understanding that Christ was referring to Peter as the rock is demonstrably the correct one. Since Peter alone is described as such, it follows that he bears a special primacy over the other apostles. This primacy is further implied by the Gospel writers, who always list Peter first among the apostles. Catholic apologist, Patrick Madrid, makes this point strongly when he writes that “St. Peter’s name is always first—and Judas Iscariot is always listed dead last. Far more commonly, though, the New Testament refers to simply ‘Peter and the others,’ as if to say that the tempestuous fisherman signified in himself the unity of the whole apostolic college.”[11]

Since we know that the writers of the New Testament penned each word with deliberate intent, we may reasonably presume that the placement of Peter at the head of the apostolic list is done in order to convey the very point made by Madrid.

Apostolic Succession

Equally rejected by many non-Catholic schools of thought is the doctrine of apostolic succession, which states that the power and authority of Peter and the apostles was handed down to their immediate successors in a constant, unbroken line to our present day. Arguments against apostolic succession often arise from the belief that Christ’s invitation to discipleship is exclusively a personal one. Brian encapsulates this argument when he says that, “to be an apostle a man had to be chosen and set apart to the apostolic office by Christ Himself … apostolic authority is never presented in Scripture as something that flows from one man to the next but is always represented as coming directly from Christ.”[12]

Citing a variety of scriptural passages, Brian attempts to demonstrate that the apostolic office was limited to those who had been appointed by Christ Himself, which therefore died out when the apostles entered eternity. One such passage is Galatians 1:1, where Paul says that his apostleship is, “not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.”[13]

If according to Brian and Karlfried, Peter is not the rock upon which the Church is founded, then this interpretation of Galatians becomes almost plausible. As we have already seen however, Peter is indeed the foundation of the Church, a fact which fundamentally underwrites Brian’s interpretation of Galatians here.

What this argument fails to recognize is that by attributing his apostleship to Christ alone, Paul is not necessarily excluding the ability to transmit his office to others. We have already seen evidence from the early Church Fathers that apostolic succession was believed and practiced as dogma of faith. In addition to their writings, the passage of Matthew 28:19-20 also provides us with an allusion to apostolic succession when Christ commissions His apostles to, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”[14]

If Christ is to remain with His apostles until the end of time, then the apostolic office must endure beyond the lifespan of the original twelve. While the standard Protestant interpretation of this passage is that Christ is commissioning each individual disciple to baptize in the name of the Trinity, this ultimately overlooks the fact that the only disciples present at this moment are the remaining eleven apostles. From the Catholic perspective therefore, Christ is specifically commissioning the apostles to continue until the end of time. As lay disciples, our participation in this great commission exists only insofar as we are united to the apostles on whom it was directly conferred. The early Christian scholar, Origen, confirms the Catholic perspective here when he writes that, “The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.”[15]

Conclusion

What the various arguments against the primacy of Peter and apostolic succession ultimately suggest is a strong animosity toward the Catholic Faith on part of many non-Catholic denominations. Fundamentally, these arguments are neither grounded in historical fact nor even in Christian Tradition, for we have demonstrated here that both of these sources lend mightily in favor of these Catholic doctrines. Misinterpretations of Matthew 16, as with any scriptural passage, can be identified as the end result of the belief that every Christian can properly interpret the Bible for himself. This belief does not eliminate the primacy of Peter necessarily, but rather shifts this primacy from his modern day successor to the individual conscience. Similarly, apostolic succession is not altogether destroyed by this belief, but is merely expanded to include every Christian disciple while often excluding those who are truly the apostolic successors of today.

It is essential therefore, for every well-meaning Christian to examine the writings of the early Fathers in light of the unbroken Tradition of the Church, so that all may come a proper understanding of the biblical texts which we universally love, and so that we may come to recognize the magnificent power of God in preserving the salvific message of the Gospel via an unbroken line of its authoritative interpreters.

[1] Matthew 16:18-19

[2] Hann, Scott Dr, Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, 36

[3] Biblehub, Mathew Commentaries

[4] Hann, Scott Dr, Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, 36

[5] Clement, Letter to the Corinthians 42, 44

[6] Holmes, Michael, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek texts and English translations, 101-105

[7] Schwertley, Brian, A Biblical Refutation of the Roman Catholic View of Authority, 22

[8] Froehlich, Karlfried, Saint Peter, Papal Primacy, and Exegetical Tradition, 3, 8-14

[9] Hann, Scott, Jesus, Peter, and the Keys, 14

[10] Hann, Scott, Jesus, Peter, and the Keys, 18

[11] Madrid, Patrick, Pope Fiction, 26

[12] Schwertley, Brian, A Biblical Refutation of the Roman Catholic View of Authority, 24