theTrents.org

Catholicism obtains its doctrine of the papacy almost entirely from a select few verses in Matthew 16:

13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; others, Elijah; still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 "But you," He asked them, "who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God!" 17 And Jesus responded, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the forces of Hades will not overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven."

After thorough research, here are my thoughts:

1. This same exchange is recorded not just in Matthew 16, but in Mark 8 and Luke 9 also. Neither Mark nor Luke bother to record what Matthew does in v.17-19. Their versions of the event reads almost identically, but without the contents of v.17-19. Surely something as important as establishing the foundation/head of the Church is not to be skipped over! The entire basis of the Catholic church rests on this doctrine. If we are to believe the Catholic interpretation of this passage, then Mark & Luke (and the Holy Spirit) are gravely remiss for not including that vital information in their gospels as well!
2. In v.18 the name "Peter" from the Greek text is "petros", which denotes a piece of rock, or perhaps a small stone. However the word "rock" in v.18 in the Greek is "petra" which indicates a mass of rock, such as in Matt. 7:24, where the wise man builds his house on the rock. You cannot build anything on a petros, but you can on a petra. So Peter is a stone (see 1Peter 2:4-5), but the rock on which the Church is built is a massive foundation (see 1Peter 2:6-7). Peter is both compared, but most importantly, contrasted, with the Church's foundation, which of course, is Christ and the confession thereof (which leads us into #3...).

   What we have here, rather than a declaration of the so-called "primacy of Peter", is a bit of wordplay by Jesus. This is consistent with what we know of Jesus' character from the rest of the New Testament -- parables and hidden meanings abound in His teachings.

   It should be noted that Jesus likely spoke these words in Aramaic, not Greek. In Aramaic, the two concepts of petra and petros would have been both handled by the word "Kepha". That means Jesus himself may not have actually made the linguistic distinction we see in the Greek text. This point is frequently offered by Catholics who seek to discredit the strong "antipapal" argument we find in this passage. However, the fact that Catholics and Christians alike agree the New Testament authors were inspired by the Spirit means the petra/petros argument still firmly stands. If Matthew, penning his Gospel under the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is able to clarify Jesus' words thanks to the marvelous specificity of the Greek language, far be it from us to question it!

3. The real key to understanding this passage is in v.15 and v.16. Here we see a clear confession of faith by Peter. This confession is the impetus for Jesus' blessing and re-declaration of Simon as Peter (petros). It is also the true focus of second part of v.18 (petra). It is the confession, and the object of the confession (Christ) that Jesus glorifies here, not the confessor. I picture Jesus tapping his own chest as he says "and on THIS rock I will build My Church".

   This interpretation is supported linguistically by #2 above, logically by #1 and #2, and scripturally by the declaration of Jesus, not Peter, as the foundation/cornerstone/rock many times throughout the New Testament (Mt. 21:42, Mr. 12:10, Lu 20:17, Ac 4:11, 1Pe 2:7, 1Cor 10:1-5, 1Cor 3:11, Eph 2:20 and probably others). Most notably, Peter himself affirms Christ as the cornerstone in 1 Peter 2.

4. Moving on to v.19 -- the Roman Church claims we see Jesus conferring a special privilege on Peter here. However, that plainly is not the case. First of all, it is debateable whether Jesus is still only "aiming" at Peter in v.19. Verses 13-15 clearly indicate the disciples were all present, and the conversation was first directed to them, corporately. Jesus did address Peter directly after he spoke up, but who is to say he didn't turn back to the rest of the disciples as he said v.19? That is just speculation, of course, but what isn't is what we see two chapters later in Matthew 18:18:
   

   "I assure you: Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven."

   This is addressed to ALL of the disciples (per 18:1), not just Peter. The same language is used in John 20:23 and is also aimed at the whole group of disciples.

   So it appears obvious that, whether or not Jesus was only speaking to Peter in v.19, the same power was soon given to the rest of the disciples anyway. And the language in Matthew 18 even seems to indicate these words are for all believers (but that is beside the point). To quote Robertson's Word Pictures:

   "He is simply first among equals, primus inter pares, because on this occasion he was spokesman for the faith of all. It is a violent leap in logic to claim power to forgive sins, to pronounce absolution, by reason of the technical rabbinical language that Jesus employed about binding and loosing. Every preacher uses the keys of the kingdom when he proclaims the terms of salvation in Christ. The proclamation of these terms when accepted by faith in Christ has the sanction and approval of God the Father. The more personal we make these great words the nearer we come to the mind of Christ. The more ecclesiastical we make them the further we drift away from him."

5. What Robertson (quoted above) says about the first part of v.19 regarding "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" deserves further exposition. We will agree with Catholics that Jesus is most certainly referring to a great and wonderful power here. However this proclamation is not exclusively for Peter, and it's not some peculiar new doctrine -- rather, it's something with which we are well acquainted and every Christian wields.

   What is a key? A key grants you access to something otherwise unattainable. This is the picture of heaven we are given in the Bible. No one may enter heaven on their own merit, or by anything other than Jesus Christ. Thus, the keys to the kingdom of heaven are none other than the Gospel and Jesus Christ! Here, again, Jesus alludes back to Peter's confession of faith and promotes not the one who confessed, but the confession itself and the object of it.

   This interpretation of the first section of v.19 is consistent with the context, and with scripture as a whole. However, the "keys" section of v.19 is simply a preface to its corrollary, the "binding/loosing" section, and this section, as I have shown, is repeated twice elsewhere addressed to more than just Peter. So, whatever the meaning here, we do not find evidence for the primacy of Peter.

6. Furthermore, in Matthew 20:21, Matthew 18:1, Mark 9:34, Luke 9:46, and Luke 22:24, Jesus has several opportunities to tell us plainly who is the greatest disciple. Two points here:
   • Jesus does NOT say that Peter is the greatest! He certainly had the opportunity -- the question had been posed. If he indeed intended Peter to assume papal-style duties, why does he not say so?
   • If Jesus already made Peter the pope (or future pope), why does this question even come up? Surely the disciples would know already the answer to the question "who is the greatest?". Assuming the Catholic viewpoint, these passages do not make sense.
7. Another key point regarding the second section of v.19: we see plainly the Catholic interpretation here is just plain bad hermeneutics by consulting any reputable literal (or "formal equivalency") translation.

   The New American Standard Bible, a literal, yet readable translation reads:

   "...and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

   Young's Literal, a bit of a tougher read, but still quite clear in this case, renders it:

   "...and whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens."

   And the LITV:

   "...And whatever you bind on earth shall occur, having been bound in Heaven. And whatever you may loose on the earth shall be, having been loosed in Heaven."

   The proper tense renderings in the literal translations make the meaning clear. The binding and loosing is only in regard to things already having been bound or loosed in heaven. The power conferred here (and in 18:18) is declarative, not efficacious. Only God may forgive sins; the apostles were only given the power to pronounce it. We see neither a peculiar honor for nor the creation of a special ecclesial hierarchy here.

In conclusion, and to restate Robertson:
Catholicism ascribes many awesome and powerful things to the pope, and as proof, they provide Matthew 16. However, it is an insult to reason, even if the Catholic interpretation be true, to infer the staggering responsibility, power, and glory of the papal office from such a scant amount of "evidence". Either way, the passage in question simply does not contain enough information to describe the all that popery entails.

Furthermore, when brought into harmony with the rest of scripture, the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:13-19 is shown to be fatally flawed. Instead of being an exaltation of a human being to god-like status, what we see in these verses is a reiteration of the relationship between Christ and His Church. This theme is repeated many times through scripture and is in perfect harmony with the Word as a whole.