The Biblical Foundations of The Papacy
(Part 3)
Paul Newcombe
Examining the New Testament:
The Pre-eminence of Peter Prior to Matthew 16
For the Davidic monarchy to truly be a pattern for the new covenant Church, it must be discernible that Jesus establishes a teaching office with universal authority to guide the faithful. It must also be clearly evident that Jesus personally chooses the first person to inherit this office. From the Catholic perspective, of course, this is exactly what we find happening in the New Testament. Moreover, the Catholic faith has always identified Peter as the apostle who assumes this leadership role — a role granted by Christ and manifested by Peter’s ever-increasing headship within the infant Church.
The New Testament is the supreme source of information when placing a spotlight upon the apostle Peter. The New Testament follows Peter’s exploits closely and provides indisputable evidence that Simon Peter had a preeminent position among Jesus’ disciples. Consider the following:
(1). Peter and Andrew are the first disciples to be called by Christ (Mark 1:16; Matthew 4:18).
(2). In the gospels, Peter is usually the spokesman for the apostles, especially at climactic moments (Mark 8:29; Matthew 18:21; Luke 12:41; John 6:68).
(3). Peter is often the central figure relating to Jesus in dramatic gospel scenes such as walking on the water (Matthew 14:28-32; Luke 5:1; Mark 10:28; Matthew 17:24)
(4). In the synoptic gospels, Peter is always named first when the apostles are listed (Mark 3:16-19; Matthew 10:1-4; Luke 6:12-16; Acts 1:13). In fact, sometimes the apostles are referred to as simply, “Peter and his companions” (Mark 1:36; Luke 9:32; Mark 16:7).
(5). A statistical analysis of the Gospels and Acts shows that among the Twelve the name of Peter occurs no less than 195 times, whereas the rest of the Apostles can muster only 130 nominations. The Apostle who comes next in prominence is St. John, with only 29 references to his name.
MATTHEW 16: Christ Appoints His Chief Steward
When developing the Catholic principles regarding the divine establishment of a centralized teaching authority within the Christian Church, the gospel of Matthew is the centerpiece. It is here that we can observe Christ choosing His prime minister as the first man to assume this teaching office — an office invested with universal authority to rule and regulate the people according to Gods’ covenant statutes until the end of time.
In Matthew chapter 16 we see Jesus coming into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He brings His apostles before a gigantic wall of rock which is 500 feet wide and ascends 200 feet skyward over the source of the Jordan River. With this monolithic natural pinnacle looming in the background, He asks His disciples a critical question, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” They reply, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” Jesus responds unequivocally, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replies, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” One can imagine Jesus casting the full force of His gaze upon Peter who, in speaking for all the apostles, has correctly identified Him as the Messiah. Having gained Jesus’ full attention, this would-be spokesman — a hot-blooded, impulsive, sometimes charismatic ex-fisherman from Galilee begins to sweat. Christ’s judgment, however, is not left suspended as He takes action with an unforgettable reply — an answer that is loaded with consequences both for Peter and the Church:
“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! 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 powers of death 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.” (Matthew 16:13-19)
It is necessary to touch upon the features of this passage that directly impinge upon the non-Catholic objections under consideration. In particular, four aspects stand out as being important:
(1). The first aspect concerns the name-change from Simon to Peter that Christ initiates.
(2). The second aspect concerns the rock and how that corresponds to Peter.
(3). The third aspect concerns the keys of the kingdom of heaven that Jesus gives to Peter along with the power to bind and loose.
(4). The fourth aspect concerns succession of Peters’ position as “Chief Steward”.
1. Change in Name — Change in Mission
Let’s consider the change of Simons name to Peter first. Professor Scott Hahn has described the necessity for Simon’s name-change in the following way:
We have already seen that Peters’ pre-eminence is clearly found throughout the New Testament materials prior to Matthew chapter 16, so we shouldn’t be surprised to find Peter again speaking up on behalf of the Apostles to provide Christ’s true identity.
I might also add that the name-change in the gospel of Matthew is first mentioned here in Matthew chapter 16; however, we discover in St. Johns gospel that Christ had changed Simon’s name to Peter from the beginning. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as rock (John 1:42). This announcement is somewhat startling since we know in the Old Testament that God was called a rock. The word was never used as a proper name for a man. In fact, it should be noted that we don’t have any archaeological evidence anywhere that suggests “Peter” was a name given to anybody before Jesus gave it to Simon.
This is significant because if somebody walked up to you, somebody who you respected, somebody of real prestige and influence in your life and they renamed you “Ice-cube”, you might look at them and wonder why. I mean that would be fair, wouldn’t it? Why Ice-cube? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? How much more would Simon, in Matthew 16, consider the significance of his own name-change hearing it right from the lips of Jesus — the one he just recognized as being the Messiah? Indeed, why “Peter” for Simon the fisherman? Why should he receive as a name a word used for God before this moment?
Peter presumably knows the Old Testament well enough to realize that there were other significant name-changes in the past. Changes that marked a real deep transformation in the fundamental direction of the lives of people like Abram whose name was changed to “Abraham” in Genesis 17; or Jacob whose name was changed to “Israel” in Genesis 32. By changing Abram’s name God produced a change in his function, role, and mission. In Hebrew, Abram means “exalted father,” while Abraham means “father of a great multitude.” In that change Abraham went from being a shepherd to becoming the founding father of all the people of Israel. Likewise, in changing Jacob’s name to Israel God calls Jacob to be the founder of the twelve tribes of Israel, the foundation of genealogy by Israel. Jesus, of course, traces his lineage from Abraham through Jacob (Matthew 1:1).
We find other changes throughout the Old Testament but Abram and Jacob figure perhaps more prominently. Here in John 1 and Matthew 16 we have the most prominent name-change in the New Testament. In all three instances you see God singling out a person of great importance for His purposes and plans and giving him a name that is going to signify his role in that plan.[12]
2. “You Are Peter, And On This Rock I Will Build My Church”
By the plain course of the words of Christ in Matthew 16:18 Peter is here declared to be the rock upon which the Church will be built. No one questions that Christ himself is the great foundation-stone, the chief corner-stone, as St. Paul tells the Ephesians (Eph 2:20); but it is also certain, that all the apostles may be called foundation-stones of the Church, as represented in Revelation 21:14. In the meantime, St. Peter, called “rock”, was the first and chief foundation-stone among the apostles, on whom Christ promised to build his Church.
Oftentimes Protestant people who oppose this view will suggest that if we trace the figurative use of the word “rock” through the Old Testament, we find that it is never used symbolically of man, but always of God. Therefore, the Jewish audience Matthew was writing to would have understood “upon this rock” as referring to God and not to Peter. This is a logical argument; however, it is ultimately an inaccurate one. The Old Testament does not use the word rock exclusively for God. In Isaiah 51:1-2, for example, God Himself calls Abraham the “rock” from which Israel was hewn. New Testament scholar William Barclay elaborates further:
Whatever else this is [Simon’s new name as “Rock”], it is a word of tremendous praise. It is a metaphor which is by no means strange or unusual to Jewish thought. The Rabbis applied the word rock to Abraham. They had a saying: “When the Holy One saw Abraham who was going to arise, he said, ‘Lo, I have delivered a rock (petra) to found the world upon.’” Therefore, he called Abraham rock (sur), as it is said: “Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn.” Abraham was the rock on which the nation and the purpose of God were founded.[13]
Would Matthew’s Jewish audience be surprised to find God calling Abraham a rock? Abraham was elevated by God to be a covenant mediator, to be, in fact, the very source of the covenant people. Likewise, we now see Peter being elevated as the patriarch of the new covenant people — and just by coincidence we also see God calling him the rock upon which the Church will be built.
Looking At the Greek Words “Petros” And “Petra”
Opponents to the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 note that in the original Greek text the name for the apostle is PETROS, while rock is rendered PETRA:
“And I tell you, you are PETER [Petros]; and on this ROCK [Petra] I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18).
In the past, some Protestants argued that petros means “a small pebble,” whereas Petra means “a large rock.” Thus, they concluded that Jesus was not naming Peter “rock” but actually contrasting Peter with the rock — Christ himself. After all Christ is often called “rock” in the New Testament (see 1 Corinthians 10:4). Matthew 16 is just another occasion where Christ’s identity as the rock is made manifest. In this instance, they postulate, Peter’s confession of faith is the important trigger which emphasizes the rock-like stability of Jesus. This interpretation is based exclusively upon the believed difference between the Greek words petros and Petra. This is also a logical argument; but again, it has a fatal flaw. For the reason that there is, in fact, no distinction in meaning between petros and petra in the Koine Greek of the New Testament. Catholic theologian, Tim Staples, explains this in more detail:
Petra means a “rock.” It even usually means a “large rock.” And that's exactly what petros means, too — large rock. It does not mean “pebble” or “small stone,” as you've been told. The Greek word for “pebble” or “small stone” is lithos, not petros. In Matthew 4:3 the devil cajoles Jesus to perform a miracle and transform some stones, lithoi, the Greek plural for lithos, into bread. In John 10:31, certain Jews pick up stones, lithoi, to stone Jesus with. In 1 Peter 2:5, St. Peter describes Christians as “living stones,” lithoi, which form a spiritual house. If St. Matthew had wanted to draw a distinction between a big rock and a little rock in Matthew 16:17-19, he could have by using lithos, but he didn't.[14]
Gerhard Kittel’s [Protestant] theological dictionary analyzes the Greek text of Matthew 16:18 as follows:
"The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and Petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words. …If, then, Mt. 16:18 forces us to assume a formal and material identity between petra and Petros, this shows how fully the apostolate, and in it to a special degree the position of Peter, belongs to and is essentially enclosed within, the revelation of Christ. Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. …In a way which transcends the Rabb. view of Abraham, Peter is brought into this picture of Abraham as the cosmic rock. He takes the place of Abraham, but he does so as the foundation of Israel kata pneuma, the community of the new covenant which Christ builds on the rock Peter." [15]
The most gifted of the Protestant reformers, John Calvin, also confirms that there is no significant distinction between petros and petra:
"I grant that in Greek Peter (Petros) and stone (Petra) mean the same thing, save that the first word is Attic [from the ancient classical Greek dialect of the Attica region], the second from the common tongue." [16]
A secondary line of evidence to help answer the petros-petra objection lies in the detailed nature of the Greek language. The word for “rock” in Greek is not neutered (without masculine/feminine versions). The words in Matthew 16:18 change because there is a gender difference between the words in the Greek language. Petros is a masculine noun, Petra is a feminine noun. Essentially the Greek language should be used with some subtlety. Therefore, Jesus does not give Peter the feminine form of the name precisely because Peter is a male. It would be inappropriate to confer upon Peter a feminine gender name — thus the author of the gospel simply changes it to its masculine form (Petros) in order to apply it to Peter without humiliating him. This is a practically necessary step to take for to use Petra in both instances would be to name Simon “ROCKETTE”, an obvious source of ridicule unbecoming for the new chief steward of the Church of Christ on earth.
Herman Ridderbos, Professor of New Testament at the theological School of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands, in analysing the Greek text states:
"It is well known that the Greek word (petra) translated 'rock' here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (Peter) to petra is that petra was the normal word for 'rock.' Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man’s name, however, Simon was not called petra but petros. …There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that He was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words 'on this rock [petra]' indeed refer to Peter. Because of the revelation that he had received and the confession that it motivated in him, Peter was appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future church."[17]
Looking at the Aramaic
There is another important building-block which makes the case for the Catholic position almost irrefutable. It must be noted that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek or even in Hebrew. Catholic, Protestant and Jewish scholars are in agreement that Christ spoke Aramaic. In other words, this exchange in Matthew 16 was first spoken in Aramaic. In Greek there are two words here “Petros” and “Petra”. However, in the Aramaic language, the common language of all Palestinians at this time, there is only one word for “rock” (in Matthew 16) and that word is “KEPHA”. What was said was thus:
“And I tell you, you are KEPHA; and on this KEPHA I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18)
The wordplay is unmistakable. Jesus is naming Peter the rock upon which He will build His Church. When investigated in the original Aramaic language, the real meaning of Christ’s words is unambiguous.
Jesus didn’t speak Aramaic?
A small minority of Protestant theologians, however, continue to place a roadblock between themselves and the universal view that Aramaic was the common language used by Christ. Their blockade is erected by insisting that there is no evidence in Scripture that Christ spoke in Aramaic or originally gave Simon the name “Kephas”. Deconstructing this barrier requires directing our attention to the very first time Jesus meets Simon the fisherman — John 1:42.
Jesus looked hard at him [Simon] and said “You are Simon son of John; you are to be called Ce´phas” — which means rock. (John 1:42).
As explained by Gary Hoge:
"Cephas is simply the Aramaic word Kepha rendered phonetically into Greek. Kepha means 'a large rock' in Aramaic, just as petra does in Greek. It does not mean 'a small pebble.' In the New Testament, Simon’s new name, Kepha, was usually translated into Greek as Petros, but eight times it was merely rendered phonetically as Cephas. … And just as Greek has a word for “small stone,” lithos, so does Aramaic. That word is evna. But Jesus did not change Simon's name to Evna, He named him Kephas, which translates as Petros, and means a large rock.[18]
These eight occurrences of the word Cephas (used as Peter’s name) demonstrate a clear connection to the presence of Aramaic as the source language for these New Testament passages. A further example of Aramaic surfacing in the text is Mark 15:34:
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Mark 15:34).
This rendering of “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani” is consistent with the Aramaic language spoken by Jesus and his original disciples in Jerusalem. Moreover, we can even see the use of an Aramaic idiom in Matthew 16:17 itself:
Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 16:17).
Steve Ray, in his Upon This Rock, describes this underlying use of Aramaic:
The name "Bar-Jona" is a confirmation that Jesus himself was speaking in Aramaic, not in Greek, during his discourse with Peter. …“The word ‘bar’ is Aramaic for ‘son’” (Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew [Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1991], 247). Watchman Nee speculates, “‘Bar’ means son. ‘Jonah’ means ‘dove’. Combined, the surname of Simon means having the revelation of the Holy Spirit. …‘Bar-Jonah’ [in Aramaic] means son of the Holy Spirit” (The King and the Kingdom of Heaven [New York: Christian Fellowship Pub., 1978], 192-93).[19]
More examples of the Aramaic source language abound in the New Testament however the above instances will suffice. As mentioned earlier, the fact that Christ and the apostles spoke Aramaic is not usually a point of debate. Yet it is understandable why a few non-Catholics persist in their objections. The desire to deflect the title of “rock” from Peter is key to many a case made against the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:13-19. However, for those who candidly examine the data, and furthermore are fearless of its consequences — the unavoidable conclusion is that Peter was indeed named Kepha — “you are Kepha; and on this Kepha I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18). Peter is indeed the rock. Furthermore, many Protestant scholars are now consenting to this historic interpretation of Matthew 16. D.A. Carson, Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary, author of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary on Matthew, writing from a Baptist perspective, says:
Although 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.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.[20]
3. The Keys of The Kingdom of Heaven Are Given to Peter
The third step in examining this particular passage is to look at the particular phrase that you find in verse 19, where Jesus says:
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be considered loosed in heaven. (Matthew 16:19).
Peter, the rock on which the Church will be built, is given the keys of the kingdom of heaven. As the steward of Jesus Christ on earth, St. Peter is the first of many who will govern the Church of Christ from the Chair of St. Peter. The keys are symbolic of the kings’ power and authority as they are entrusted to his prime minister. Steve Ray provides the following overview regarding the ongoing debate which calls into question this Catholic understanding of “binding” and “loosing”:
Attempts are often made to soften Jesus’ words, to make them appear to give Peter no real authority, by stating that what the apostles bind and loose on earth ratifies a prior decision in heaven or that Peter (and subsequently all who believe) is only given the right to tell others that their sins are forgiven if they believe in Jesus. However, this is not what the passage says. Peter is given the prerogative to make binding decisions upon the Church that God will ratify from heaven; thus, God binds himself to Peter’s decisions. Therefore, God watches over each pronouncement made by Peter and his successors, since God Himself has promised to ratify what the Church determines. “The judgment of Peter, and by implication that of the church, reflects what is in accord with what is settled in heaven as the fully determined will of God. Whether this is already decreed in the will of God or subsequently ratified as the will of God is not the issue here. Peter’s authority, in short, is such that he speaks on behalf of heaven (i.e., God)” (Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28, Word Biblical Commentary, Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1995, 33b:474).[21]
Stanley L. Jaki in his The Keys of the Kingdom clarifies the common usage “binding and loosing” received in first century Jewish deliberations:
Disputes among [the Rabbis] were so numerous in Jesus’ time as to let the expression “to loose and to bind” become a standard reference to the endless disagreements that raged a little earlier between the two main rabbinical authorities, Shamma and Hillel. What the one loosed, the saying went, the other bound, and vice versa.[22]
First century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (c.A.D. 37—c. 100), also provides a penetrating glimpse of the meaning ascribed to the term “binding and loosing”:
[The] Pharisees artfully insinuated themselves into her [Alexandria’s] favor by little and little, and became themselves the real administrators of the public affairs: they banished and reduced whom they pleased; they bound and loosed (men) at their pleasure; and, to say all at once, they had the enjoyment of the royal authority.[23]
Steve Ray, continues his analysis of Matthew 16:19 with regard to the implications it has for Peters’ infallibility:
Jesus put an end to the disputes and the question of who has the real authority to bind and loose. Who has the real authority? He does! He delegated the royal authority to Peter, the steward and vizier of his new kingdom, and promised to ratify in heaven what Peter bound or loosed on earth. This also introduces the issue of infallibility, for Jesus could not promise to ratify Peter’s earthly decisions in heaven if he were not certain of Peter’s declarations. Jesus would have to protect Peter’s teaching and judgments in order to make such a sweeping promise.[24]
The Catholic insistence that Peter and his successors make heavenly decisions (on the subject of Christian faith and morals) finds its root in the power to “bind and loose”. Catholic theologian Robert Sungenis provides additional evidence from the Mathean text — evidence which strengthens the Catholic interpretation making it well-nigh indisputable:
The Greek phrasing of Matthew 16:19: “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” offers decisive support for the doctrine of infallibility. …the dynamic relationship that Jesus sets up between heaven and earth is remarkable. The future tense shows that a binding occurs in heaven either prior to or simultaneous with the binding performed on earth. In addition, the Greek verb is in the passive voice which indicates that heaven in receiving the binding, not initiating it. How does all this prove infallibility? Simply by the fact that since God cannot lie, he cannot validate or dispense any decision in faith or morals that is in error. When the Church makes a binding or loosing decision it must be inerrant otherwise God would not be able to issue an error-free binding or loosing in heaven.[25]
At this point it would be understandable for Protestant people to state: “Boy those Catholics are hanging a lot of doctrine on this one verse! How do we know the proper context isn’t being neglected? We need to be careful not to turn a proof-text into a pre-text. In short, we need an accurate biblical context to accompany Matthew 16 before this Catholic interpretation can carry full weight.” In short this is a reasonable, level-headed request. It requires a reasonable, level-headed answer.
The Isaiah Connection
Professor Hahn describes the matter this way:
When sharing the scriptural foundations of Peter and the papacy with non-Catholic Christians, it is crucial at this point to familiarize your listener with the root context of Matthew 16:19. Verse 19 is, in fact, a phrase that Jesus is lifting right out of an Old Testament passage. Almost all commentaries, Protestant or Catholic, affirm that Jesus is citing from Isaiah 22:22. Different commentaries will refer to it as an illusion, citation or quotation. At any rate, the actual construction of words is so remarkably similar that we have good reason to believe that Jesus is lifting an important phrase right from an Old Testament passage—a phrase that again refers to the keys of the kingdom. However, before reading Isaiah 22 it is helpful to re-illustrate a little bit of the historical background since Isaiah is prophesying during the time of King Hessakiah.
As we have already established, the house of David (the Davidic monarchy) was divinely instituted by God through King David in the 11th Century B.C. King Hessakiah ruled the Davidic monarchy in the 8th Century B.C. Isaiah 22 confirms that the house of David, which has now been operational for hundreds of years, continues to follow the traditional Jewish system of authority. King Hessakiah did not rule alone—like the kings that had come before him he possessed a cabinet of ministers under his authority. And in his cabinet, there was a prime-minister — a chief steward who dispensed the kings own universal authority in order to provide effective leadership.
Unfortunately, not all of the occupants of the chamberlain’s office were worthy of their position, and God stripped some of them of their authority. Isaiah 22:20-23 demonstrates one instance where this happened. In reading the passage we meet a man named Shebna who has been serving King Hessakiah as the prime minister. But, Shebna has been discovered as an evil opportunist and thus he is being expelled from his office and is being replaced by a righteous and humble servant named Eliakim. God describes this transfer of power in a very vivid, visual way. He says:
“In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. AND I WILL PLACE ON HIS SHOULDER THE KEY OF THE HOUSE OF DAVID; HE SHALL OPEN, AND NONE SHALL SHUT; HE SHALL SHUT, AND NONE SHALL OPEN. And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.” (Isaiah 22:20-23).
When comparing Isaiah 22:22 with Matthew 16:19 we can see the parallel existing between “the key of the house of David” given to Eliakim, and, the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” given to Peter. The parallel is extended further where we find Eliakim being told that with this key he shall be able to shut that none shall open and open that none shall shut — obviously corresponding to the promise that Jesus gives to Peter concerning “binding” and “loosing”.[26]
To symbolize his authority as chief steward, Eliakim carried “the key of the house of David” in a pouch on his shoulder. The key symbolized the difference between him and the lesser ministers he oversaw. Other ministers could bind and loose—permit and prohibit activity in the household — but the chief steward or Prime Minister was invested with universal authority so that no one could undo his judgments. No one except the King himself.
Professor Hahn continues his analysis:
Now what is the point behind all of this? The point here is simple: When Jesus uses an image or in this case an actual citation from the Old Testament, he doesn’t use it in a way that distorts the meaning of the original context. Jesus does not wrench texts out of their original context. He does not distort the original meaning of a passage when he applies it to his own contemporary situation. Instead, there is a smooth transition and continuity between the original meaning and the new context. In other words, Jesus knows the Old Testament like the back of his hand; he honours the original context from which he draws his citations, his illusions and quotations; and he uses those original contexts as the primary sources for us to understand the meaning that he imparts to these New Testament phrases like Matthew 16:19.[27]
How does Isaiah 22 illuminate our understanding of Matthew 16? What is Christ trying to show us by citing this passage when referring to Peter?
(1). First of all, it means that Jesus is the new “King” — the new Hessakiah.
(2). Secondly it means that Peter, as holder of the keys, is the new “Prime Minister” — the new Eliakim.
(3). Thirdly it demonstrates that Peter, as Prime Minister, may now exercise the executive power contained in the “keys of the kingdom”.
(4). Fourthly we see that Peters’ position as Prime Minister is summarized by Eliakims’ role as “a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah”. Peter will be a father-figure to Christ’s Church — His earthly family.
Professor Hahn further clarifies these points:
Jesus is the son of David, He is the true King of Israel who now sits on the throne of David as the fulfillment of the Davidic lineage. Now, in Matthews’ gospel, we see Jesus going about constructing His Kingdom by appointing not only twelve ministers as His royal cabinet, but one particular person, namely Peter, to be His prime minister. He entrusts to Peter the keys of the kingdom and, like Eliakim, Peter may now in the same manner govern Christ’s kingdom. As chief steward he may bind and loose with universal authority.[28]
Isaiah 22:17-25 was well known to the Jews of Jesus’ day. As explained by Steve Ray, this prophecy was famous precisely because it deals with the religious authority structure that presided over the Jewish nation:
Not a Jew alive, at least no one who had been to the synagogue for the reading of the law and the Prophets, would have missed the implication of Jesus’ utterance. Jesus’ statement did not recall this passage in Isaiah without reason — Jesus always had profound reasons for saying what he said and for using the Old Testament passages he selected. He targeted this eight-hundred-year-old prophecy because of the governmental office that Isaiah was addressing, and the parallel context Jesus was addressing. Both involved kingdoms; both involved delegated authority; both involved the appointment of royal stewards. Both situations had to do with royal appointments, and both would have decisive impacts on the respective kingdoms.[29]
In ever-increasing numbers, the most prominent Protestant scholars and exegetes are acknowledging that Isaiah 22 seals the context of Matthew 16 and, moreover, that Christ therefore entrusts Peter with the authority belonging to the Davidic prime minister. A case in point is the Protestant biblical scholar F.F. Bruce who in his The Hard Sayings of Jesus writes the following:
And what about the “keys of the kingdom”? The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or major-domo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. About 700 B.C. an oracle from God [through Isaiah] announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim: “I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open” (Isa. 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward.[30]
Anglican scholar R.T. France writes:
These terms [binding and loosing] thus refer to a teaching function, and more specifically to one of making halakhic pronouncements which are to be binding on the people of God. In that case Peter’s “power of the keys” declared in [Matthew] 16:19 is not so much that of the door keeper, who decides who may or may not be admitted to the kingdom of heaven, but that of the steward (as in Is 22:22, generally regarded as the Old Testament background to the metaphor of the keys here), whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household.[31]
To summarize, Jesus intentionally draws the attention of the apostles to Isaiah’s prophecy as a vital backdrop to his transmission of the keys of authority to Peter. A new prime minister is placed over the kingdom of Judah. A new prime minister is placed over the kingdom of Christ. “Jesus ascends the throne of David as the heir and successor of the kings of Israel and Judah, and he too, according to custom and legal precedent, appoints a royal steward over his kingdom. …The parallels between Peter and Eliakim are striking. The physical kingdom of Israel has been superseded by the spiritual kingdom of God. The office of steward in the old economy is now superseded by the Petrine office with the delegation and handing on of the keys.”[32] As already mentioned, the Greek phrasing “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” offers decisive support for the doctrine of infallibility. And the context? Well, far from refuting the Catholic position, it actually proves it in the most poignant fashion. The Isaiah-connection provides an unmistakable context of universal authority to the Petrine office and a bulletproof confirmation of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:13-19.
4. Dynastic Succession
At this point, when sharing the biblical evidence in support of the papacy, it is necessary to examine the concept of papal succession. Many non-Catholic Christians are willing to agree that Peter is the rock; that Peter is appointed as the head of the apostolic Church; that Peter possesses Christ’s authority, however, they will deny that Christ intended Peters’ authoritative position to be received by a line of successors to the end of time.
Does Isaiah 22 Provide a Context of Succession?
From its inception the Catholic Church has proclaimed and practiced apostolic succession as it pertains to the keys of the kingdom. Transmitted through time via the office of Peter, the unbroken chain of 265 popes has continued to exercise the authority of the keys in the same manner as the Davidic royal chamberlain governed the people of God from one generation to the next. There is much we can learn from the Davidic monarchy regarding succession. When the vizier died the office did not. The office itself is not defined by the man who holds it. In the case of the death of the reigning prime minister — another man would be selected to fill the vacant post. Dr Hahn explains how Christ, in applying the Davidic context to his election of Peter, provides several lines of evidence for succession in the Petrine office:
Usually we think of dynastic succession only with regard to the King himself, so that when he dies his son takes the throne and assumes the authority. However we find in Isaiah 22 clear evidence that dynastic succession does not only pertain to the royal office itself but also to the royal offices associated with the kingdom cabinet. There are various lines of evidence which indicate this particular approach:
(1). First of all, the fact that the key granted to Eliakim is of “the House of David”, suggests a dynastic association. The earmarks of succession are there. The prime ministers assisted the kings of the House of Judah in a line of succession parallel to the kings. The king passed on from generation to generation through offspring and issue, the prime minister through appointment.
(2). Another line of evidence is clearly seen in the process of re-election. After the expusion of wicked Shebna, the unworthy prime minister, his office is not left vacant. Eliakim is immediately appointed as his successor under King Hessakiah. Moreover, his position is automatically associated with the keys of the kingdom. This suggests a kind of assumed practice whereby succession involves not merely the king and his son but also the prime minister and his successor.
(3). Another very interesting line of evidence is in verse 23 of Isaiah 22 where we are told that Eliakim will receive a throne of honor in his fathers house:
And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become A THRONE OF HONOR to his father's house (Isaiah 22:23).
Not only does King Hessakiah have a throne of honor, but also his Prime Minister has a throne of honour — presumably in a subordinate position but none-the-less a royal throne of his own. What we are really talking about with the prime minister is an office which when left vacant must be filled by a successor. Why? Because this is the highest office in the royal court, and it is attached to and associated with the dynastic succession of the king.
The keys are not just a symbol of authority but are also a clear symbol demonstrating that an office is being instituted so that when Peter dies there automatically assumes a successor, and that when the successor dies, yet another one, and so on.
It is clear that Jesus is investing Peter with a “throne of honour” (Is 22:23) from which he will serve as a “father” figure (Is 22:21) to His Church. It is clear that Peter, as holder of the “key” of the kingdom (Is 22:22), will govern with Christ’s own authority; whatever he binds on earth “shall be considered bound in heaven” whatever he looses on earth “shall be considered loosed in heaven” (Matt 16:19). And finally, it is clear that Peter, like Eliakim, holds an office that automatically demands an unbroken line of successors after his death. Thus, we have the biblical grounds for believing that Jesus instituted Peters’ office to include successors — known as the Popes.[33]
Once we have factored in the context of Isaiah 22 and applied it, as Christ does, to His depiction of Peter in Matthew 16, the true nature of Christ’s prime minister is revealed.
Why the Protestant Aversion to a Context of Succession?
The Protestant aversion to recognizing succession is simple. The issue of succession in the Petrine office crosses the line. One may freely admit that the Bible teaches us to view Peter as the rock, that Peter is indeed singled out among the apostles and installed with the universal authority of the Davidic prime minister — and yet remain Protestant. But this authority of binding and loosing must end with Peter! Venturing into the realm of Petrine succession becomes precarious for any believer wishing to maintain his Protestant heritage. Without doubt, if Scripture reveals that the new covenant prime minister has successors — indeed successors who retain the authority and power of the keys of heaven — the result is a contradiction with the formal principle of the Protestant reformation which denied continuing authority from the seat of Peter and instead elevated Scripture alone as infallible and authoritative. As explained by Robert Fastiggi: “Christians of today who call themselves ‘Evangelical’, ‘Reformed’ or ‘Protestant’ all accept the principle of sola scriptura [scripture alone] as one of the defining characteristics of true Christianity. Individual churches and pastors often proclaim the ‘bible only’ as the source of their teaching. To be called ‘bible-cantered’ or ‘bible based’ is, for many, the first sign of fidelity to the Christian message.”[34] This belief system is a direct prodigy of the theology expressed by the various reformation creeds — the Belgic Confession (1561); the Second Helvetic Confession (1566); the Formula of Concord (1577); the Augsburg Confession (1577); the Westminster Confession (1648) and many others as well. These creeds contain clear expressions of the formal principle of the Protestant reformation and lay the foundations for sola scriptura as the guiding principle for the Protestant “bible churches” of our day. Citing these defining Protestant creeds may be helpful at this point:
The Formula of Concord (1577) — the Holy Scriptures alone remain the only judge, rule and standard, according to which, as the only test-stone, all dogmas should be discerned and judged, as to whether they be good or evil, right or wrong.[35]
Here we have the solitude of Scripture as the “only judge”, the “only test-stone” when discerning “all dogmas”.
Second Helvetic Confession (1566) — But we hold that the interpretation of the Scripture to be orthodox or genuine which is gleaned from the Scripture themselves (from the matter of the language in which they were written, likewise according to the circumstances in which they were set down, and expounded in the light of like and unlike passages and of many clearer passages) and which agree with the rule of faith and love…[36]
Here the authoritative guidance of the Petrine office (in providing “orthodox” and “genuine” interpretations of Scripture) is replaced by “the Scripture themselves”. In similar fashion to the Belgic and Second Helvitic Confessions, the Westminster Confession articulates the basic principle of the sole sufficiency of the Bible as the rule of faith:
The Westminster Confession of faith (1648) — The whole council of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture; unto which nothing at any time is to be added whether by new revelation or of the Spirit, or the traditions of men.[37]
But how does the Holy Spirit guide Christians to the true understanding of the Bible? Here again there is the belief that the Scripture itself is its own rule of interpretation:
The Westminster Confession of faith (1648) — The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[38]
The Westminster Confession is a clear depiction of the reformation principle that Scripture is to be interpreted in the light of Scripture itself and not by any other authority. As already mentioned, if Scripture reveals the new covenant Prime Minister as having successors — successors who retain the authority and power of the keys of heaven — the result is a contradiction with the “bible alone” principle of the Protestant reformation. Despite having no convincing counter-evidence from “Scripture itself”, many times a Protestant denial is rigorously maintained against Isaiah 22 as the contextual root providing Matthew 16 with its framework of Petrine succession. Any kind of context that implies succession must be halted to stop the veritable chain-reaction of historical evidence which points to the Catholic Church as the only contender for the Petrine office.
There is only one line of Christian people who can make a claim to be the successors of Peter — the bishops of Rome. All the Christian writings we have from the first seven centuries A.D. state unequivocally that Peter founded the Church in Rome, that he died a martyr’s death there at the hands of the Romans, and that the Bishops of Rome have been the successors of the Petrine office. An unforgettable example is Irenaeus (the second Christian Bishop of Lyons) writing in 180A.D. in his Against Heresies. Irenaeus here provides us with a 2nd century glance at the list of popes that ruled the Christian Church in the seat of Peter in Rome. All of these Bishops are listed as direct successors in the office originally held by Peter:
The tradition derived from the Apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority... The Blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to LINUS. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy. To him [Linus] succeeded ANENCLETUS; and after him in the third place from the Apostles, CLEMENT was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed Apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the Apostles, and had their traditions before his eyes. …To this Clement, EVARISTUS succeeded; and ALEXANDER succeeded Evaristus. Then, sixth after the Apostles, SIXTUS was appointed; after him, TELESPHORUS, who was gloriously martyred. Then HYGINUS; after him, PIUS; and after him, ANICETUS. SOTOR succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the Apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to ELEUTHERUS. In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us.[39]
In short, to believe that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Saint Peter and therefore has a universal teaching authority and, moreover, that this model is clearly taught in Scripture (and history) — is to embrace distinctively Catholic theology. Needless to say — roadblocks, barriers, blockades, barricades and obstructions must be erected to prevent the migration of souls into the Catholic Church. Either that or simply ignoring or refusing to apply the biblical evidence to the issue of Petrine succession has been the established pattern for many (otherwise brilliant) non-Catholic scholars. As noted by Steve Ray:
I find it rather intriguing that Protestants, who scoff at papal succession, are willing to admit there is a strong relationship between Isaiah 22 and Jesus’ words to Peter and to speak of Eliakim succeeding Shebna. Fundamentalist Harry A. Ironside writes, “The successor of Shebna was Eliakim.” [Harry A. Ironside, Expository Notes on the Prophet Isaiah, Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1952, p.130]. Matthew Henry writes, “It is here foretold, [sic] that Eliakim should be put into Shebna’s place of lord-chamberlain of the household. …To hear of it would be a great mortification to Shebna, much more to see it. Great men, especially proud men, cannot endure their successors.” [Matthew Henry’s Commentary, 4:121]. These two Protestant stalwarts do not hesitate to admit that Eliakim was the successor of Shebna and that the position of steward was one of succession. I would have to guess they would not have used such phraseology had they been thinking of this passage in relationship to Matthew 16. However, their comments confirm that the office of “steward” was one of succession. That the office of royal steward is successive (or dynastic) has great weight when one understands the relationship between the prophecy concerning Eliakim and that of Peter. The Old Testament makes a strong case for apostolic succession. Though Evangelicals have ignored this, it must be honestly faced if we want to understand Peter’s commission properly.[40]
Footnotes:
[12] Hahn, Scott. Peter and the Papacy [audio], West Covina, Saint Joseph Communications, 1996.
[13] Barclay, William. The Gospel of Matthew, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1975, 2:140.
[14] Staples, Tim, Bam! Bam! The "Pebbles" Argument Goes Down, http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.2/nutsandbolts.html, access date: 11th November 2005.
[15] Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. And ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. VI, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968, pp.98-99.
[16] Calvin, John. Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries—The Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 2, trans. T.H.L. Parker, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972, p. 188.
[17] Ridderbos, Herman N. Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987, p. 303.
[18] Hoge, Gary. On Which Rock Will Jesus Build His Church?, http://www.catholic-outlook.com, access date: 1st January 2005.
[19] Ray, Steve. Upon this Rock, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1999, p.33.
[20] Gaebeleinm, Frank E., ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984, p. 368.
[21] Ray, Steve. Upon This Rock, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1999, p.37.
[22] Jaki, Stanley L. The Keys of the Kingdom, Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1986, p.43.
[23] War of the Jews 1, 5, 2, in Josephus: Complete Works, trans. William Whiston, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Pub., 1980, p.434.
[24] Ray, Steve. Upon This Rock, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1999, p.271.
[25]
[26] Hahn, Scott. Peter and the Papacy [audio], West Covina, Saint Joseph Communications, 1996.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ray, Steve. Upon This Rock, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1999, p.273.
[30] Bruce, F.F. The Hard Sayings of Jesus, Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1983, pp. 143-44.
[31] France, R.T. Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, Grand Rapids, Mich.:Zondervan, 1989, p.247.
[32] Ray, Steve. Upon This Rock, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1999, p.274.
[33] Hahn, Scott. Peter and the Papacy [audio], West Covina, Saint Joseph Communications, 1996.
[34] Fastiggi, Robert. Not By Scripture Alone¸ Ed. Robert A. Sungenis, Queenship Publishing, Santa Barbara, 1997, p.325.
[35] The Formula of Concord, 1577, Summary Content, Section 7.
[36] The Second Helvetic Confession, 1566, Chapter 2—Of Interpreting The Holy Scriptures; and of Fathers, Councils, and Traditions.
[37] The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1648, Chapter 1, Of The Holy Scriptures, Section VI.
[38] The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1648, Chapter 1, Of The Holy Scriptures, Section IX.
[39] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (A.D. 180).
[40] Ray, Steve. Upon This Rock, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1999, p.290-291.