Was Peter The First Pope (Leader) Designated By Christ To Lead His Church?

Three distinct issues separate Catholicism from Protestantism (Evangelicals) which include: 

1) The Eucharist (Communion being the actual body and blood of Christ)

2) The Papacy

3) Mary & Saints

1) Mathew 16:18 - "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”

Protestant Christian Understanding: Christ referred to Peter as a pebble and was referring to Himself as "the rock".  Christ built his church not upon Peter, a man, but upon Himself and the Faith of Peter.  And what was Peter's faith? It was when Peter alone pronounced, "Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God."  Christ used the word "Cephas" when referring to Peter, meaning "pebble" not "the rock".  Therefore, Christ built his Church on Himself and not upon Peter.

Catholic Christian Understanding: Quick Cliff Note Answers:

1) God changed both Peter and Abraham's name in the old and new testament, who were both His chosen leaders.

2) There is only one word for Rock in the language of Aramaic, which Jesus spoke, so it is impossible that there was any confusion on whether he said rock or pebble when referring to Peter.

3) Christ gave "the keys" to Peter alone and when a steward or subject received the keys to anything in those days from their master, that was the ultimate symbol that they are in charge of that property and were to procure it.

Catholics believe that 1) Christ made Peter the first Pope, the successor and leader of His Church He established while on earth. 2) Christ build His church on, or upon, Peter and called him the foundation, or the rock, upon which the one true Church would be built. 3) Christ intended to build His Church upon or through Peter as the first leader, or Pope, who was to guide the masses into truth and teach the way Christ intended all believers to live.

Reading the bible cannot be done just by reading a single verse and understanding it's meaning without it's context.  The bible is a holistic message of truth and all scripture read together is divine truth.  The bible is a flowing meaning of truth and can only be truly understood when the reader compares and evaluates all the verses together, using "concordance" and comparing reoccurring events that relate to each other in the Old and New testaments.

Therefore, the way to understand this verse completely is by first going back to: "Isaiah 22" where a similar incident happened, and draw from it the key phrases and understanding of what God was teaching us in both incidents. 

Luke 24:13, 24, 44: Christ rebukes the apostles asking them, "Do you not understand that everything foretold in the Old Testament has to happen."  Here Christ specifically teaches us that if we do not read and understand the Old Testament to the best of our ability, then we will not see or realize the foreshadowing and blue print for what Jesus intended to do when He came in the new testament.  Jesus was foreshadowed as to come as the new Jacob.  Jacob, from the Old Testament, had 12 sons, and passed his kingdom onto them, as Jesus chose 12 sons, "the Apostles", and passed the eternal Kingdom onto them.  Christ instructs that we should search the Old Testament, in Luke 24, which blue prints the New Testament and how Christ was to make the Old Testament even better, redeeming the world by "fulfilling" the Old Testament.  Christ specifically said He came to "fulfill" the Old Testament, not to replace it or throw it out.   

"Isaiah 22:15" shows us that since the beginning of time, there was always a "Prime Minister" in the Kingdom of God.  This started with Adam who was appointed to name the rest of the animals and be the superior being over them in paradise.  God didn't spend thousands of years teaching principles of Old Testament only to say when Christ came to earth, "Now forget everything I have taught you and throw it out."  On the contrary,  proof that God commanded us to understand and keep the Old Testament equally with the New Testament  can be found at the  Sermon on the mount Matthew 5: 17:18 - "Don't think that I have come to destroy the law of the prophets, but to fulfill them."  The office of "king" as we new it in the old testament was fulfilled by Christ in the new testament, meaning everything was made even greater by His coming.

Along with that, understanding the role of a "Chief Steward" in the bible is very important as well.  (Keep in mind all the previous examples and all the following are purposeful for getting the entire picture of the importance of Peter and his role in Christ's Church.)  Since the beginning of time, God always appointed a "Chief Steward" or "Prime Minister" to look after his property.  The "Chief Steward" was the manager of the property but normally did not own it.  There also were cases of several stewards appointed to one property, with one chief steward who help authority over all.  We learn about stewardship in the passage, Isaiah 22:15, which talks about the unjust steward and a man who misuses his authority.  God reprimands him and replaces him taking away his authority and stewardship.  Joseph would be a good example of a "type" of Christ, or a man like Christ in the Old Testament.  He was made Pharaoh's Prime Minister and was given special garments to wear so he would be recognized by the people, as the Pope does today. 

The Chief Steward was always the right-hand man to the King.  He held a very important position to procure what the King owned and to ensure it carried on as the King wished.  These are the exact similarities that are drawn by the Catholic faith of what the Pope is to Christ.  

So when it comes to the passage we are analyzing, Matthew 16:18,  how does it relate to Isaiah 22?  Well, every word that was spoken by Christ in Matthew 16:18 was specific and completely thought through and said for a specific purpose. The physical location of Matthew 16:18 where Christ took His apostles to, for instance, held significant importance because it related to exactly what Christ was about to do, establish His Church on earth.  Christ took his Apostles to a place in Israel where a HUGE rock existed with a spring that flowed below it.  It was a significant place and very famous among all the people back then because it was a place where many people established churches and built shrines to their gods and organizations.  There was actually a shrine on top of this same rock built to honor Caesar, created by a man named Phillip.  The area itself was known as region of Caesarea Philippi.  Christ purposely chose this same place to establish and build the ONE TRUE church on a rock.  It is very interesting to acknowledge that He thought through every little detail because what He as about to do was of the utmost importance.   

So when they arrived at the rock, which towered behind them in the background filled with pagan shrines and idols from other religions, Christ then engages in conversation with all of his Apostles and asks them, " Who do they say I am?"  And the Apostles answered several answers of who people said that He was.  Several Apostles spoke up and answered this question.  After there were several answers, Christ then asked ALL of the Apostles directly, "Yes, but who do YOU say that I am?" And it fell silent.  No one spoke and then it was Simon Peter, the only one that answered out of all the 12, saying, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 

(As a side note in the bible, God is very consistent and uses important happenings to always occur in 3's, for example - 3 people were anointed back in that time -1) prophets were anointed, 2) priests and 3) Kings.  The bible shows us that God's work could always be recognized through absolute perfection and consistency, and the number 3 was always used when something of importance was being constructed by God.    

God knew then and still knows now He needs to restore us to a proper relationship with Him, and through these 3 positions He did just that.

1) Prophets in knowing - oil poured upon their heads to show they were anointed by God.  They were to help keep the flock in correct knowledge and understanding of God. (Exactly what the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops and Priests are expected to do today).

2) Priests because we need spiritual life and priests have the power, through God, to absolve sins. They are ordained by God to ensure spiritual life and to keep us from being dead in sin. We see this in Matthew 3:6 and in Leviticus. 

3) King to meditate the law of God and implement laws that conform to God's law.  

All of these positions of power point forward to ONE who would be all three of them rolled into One -  Our Lord Jesus. "The Word made flesh and dwelling among us."  John 1:14 explains Jesus Christ who is the ultimate embodiment of the Word of God in bodily form, the HIGH PRIEST, and the King.)

So keeping that in mind, let's jump back to Matthew 16:18.  Three very important things rolled into one, happened at this very moment when Peter replied.  Peter says, "You are the Christ etc"  In this Peter says 3 things to Christ which where: 1) You are The King, 2) The Prophet and 3) The High Priest.

Then in Matthew 17 Christ says back to Peter that he will be the teacher of all teachers, the high priest of the new church and chief steward of Christ's kingship  Matthew 17:  “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”

In reading this passage, it is crucial to recognize every single word that comes out of Christ's mouth in response to Peter, because every single word is spoken for a specific purpose.  Jesus takes specific note that Simon is the Son of Jonah and it is interesting because the name Jonah was that of the prophet Jonah in the Old Testament.  Christ recognized that Peter just called Him Prophet, Priest and King.  Christ then said to Simon, "YOU ALONE were selected by GOD the Father with what you have spoken."  No other Apostle spoke up or even attempted to answer the question.  Only Peter did.  

 (As a little Jewish history and cultural fact, It is also interesting to point out that among the Jewish religion, there was already this idea of a "special rock" among the Jews that would come and lead them to Truth.)

It is also very important to recognize that once Peter spoke his reply, no other Apostle chimed in or challenged him on it.  All were silent and accepted his proclamation as God given truth, as Jesus immediately recognized to all of them that God The Almighty told Peter this and spoke directly to him.

“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven."  18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”

So the reason Jesus is even referring to a rock, is because of their location and being next to this massive rock upon which many false churches were being spiritually started and built.  Christ's purpose was to point out that none of the idols, religions or even the rock itself were the real rock.  With these examples all around them, Christ went on to say that He was the real emperor and incarnation of world power, and then spoke directly to Peter alone saying, "YOU are the rock Peter and on this rock I build my church."  

Why does Jesus refer to Peter as a Rock? Because everything of strong foundation and immovable characteristics was built on a rock foundation back in those days. The Temple was built on a rock, The Holy of Holies was built on a rock, and many more structures built to withstand time, etc.  Christ went on to tell Peter 'The truth came out of your lips Peter, God selected you alone to reveal this truth, you are the supreme profit and high priest, you are the rock. .. you are the high priest that stands on this rock.'  So what Christ was pointing out is that the real rock is YOU Peter, not this rock that stands behind us in the Caesarea Philippi, which was being worshipped or used by so many as a religious foundation.  

Whether Peter is the rock himself, or his faith was the rock does not matter.  They are both one and the same.  What is important is that Peter was the one selected by God to speak the Truth of Jesus which gave him his supremacy in God's church, according to God's choice.  The idea that it was Peter's faith and not Peter himself that Christ was referring to as the rock is just circular rhetoric that logically has the same ending, it is not either or, it is both and.  Both statements lead to the same place with Peter as the one selected by God who made him the high priest and was to lead the people of God according to Christ.  Peter is the one that professed the truth of God, he was the one God the Almighty selected to speak DIRECTLY through to respond to His son Jesus.  No other Apostle got this direction from God Almighty.  This is a very significant point on so many levels that cannot be denied.  

Now, the hang up between Protestants and Catholics is whether Jesus was referring to Himself as the Rock, or if He was referring to Peter as the Rock.  According to the Bible language and what Christ actually said, Christ was referring to Peter as the rock and it is important to note God himself uses the actual word "rock", referring to other people, OTHER than Himself, in the Old Testament.  Again we need to use concordance and evaluate the bible as a complete work.  God also called Abraham "rock" so this was not the first time He did this with someone of significance.  God said to Abraham in Isaiah 51:1  “Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness and who seek the Lord, Look to the rock from which you were cut and to the quarry from which you were hewn; look to Abraham, your father … "

God specifically refers to Abraham as the Rock, the father, from which the Israelites were carved out and were to look to him for direction.  And just like God said this to Abraham, Jesus said the same thing to Peter, who was the new Abraham and fulfilling that role in the new testament.

What is also interesting to correlate with Abraham and Peter is that Abraham was the first important man, in the Old Testament, whose name God changes.  God does not change a name of a man unless there is significant importance to do so, it was rare. God changed his name from "Abram", which is a masculine given name of Hebrew origin, meaning "exalted father", to "Abraham" which means "father of multitude or of many peoples".  So likewise when Christ first meets Simon Peter, in John 1, his name is Simone or "Si-mone" which means "grain of sand".  But Christ changes his name to Kephas, which means ROCK in Aramaic, which is the sister language to Hebrew and was the common language of the time that was spoken every day.  When Jesus said this to Peter, it was in Aramaic, which had only one word for ROCK, therefore it is impossible for there to be any confusion on whether or not Christ said ROCK or pebble.  So basically Jesus said, you have been grain of sand, but now I am upgrading you to rock when He changed Peter's name.  

So we have clear examples of God the Almighty and Jesus Christ both changing the names of their appointed leaders of both the Old Testiment and the New Testiment.  It is important to note that Abraham was the only one God the Almighty changed the name of and Peter was the only one of the Apostles that Jesus changed the name of.  It links Peter and Abraham together, who were both leaders chosen by God during their time.  And of course Jesus called Peter the Rock and did so in the New Testament, just as God the Father called Abraham the rock in the Old Testament.  So God did this both times in different eras.  

So where does the idea come from, that Jesus pretty much condescendingly puts Peter down and calls him a "pebble" and actually referred to Himself as the rock?   The first question has to be, "Where does the bible say that?"  Where does the Bible even suggest that Christ was putting Peter in his place and calling him a pebble?  That is a connotation built into the passage that is not there.  Where did this idea that the size of the rock matters come from in the bible?  The whole concept does not make sense nor is it found in the bible because no where does it say that if Jesus calls you a small or large rock does it affect how important that person is.  In fact if you look at the context, Jesus is pronouncing praise and privileges of Peter which is the exact opposite of putting him down.

Let's take a look at the context and what is going on in Matthew 16:18, this idea that Christ calls Peter a pebble, or meant pebble, is completely contradictory to everything else that Christ said before and after it.   Read the verses again and you will see Christ is doing nothing but praising Peter for his proclamation of Faith, inspired by God the Father.  Christ praises Peter saying "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah".  Christ then goes on to acknowledge that God The Almighty just inspired you alone Peter to know this, I Jesus Christ, did not tell you this or tell you to say this.

(As a side note, here we find certain biblical proof of God the Father speaking directly to a man.  Thus one of the many proofs that Papal infallibility and inspiration is real and biblical because God the Almighty spoke directly to Peter, the first pope.)  

Christ is praising Peter, He is saying you are blessed and recipient of a heavenly revelation.  Peter is the only one being addressed by Jesus at this point out of the whole group, not any of the other Apostles.  So how does it make sense that Christ would be praising Peter in verses 17 and 19, but the verse in-between, verse 18, He puts Peter down and condescends him in the same breath by saying, "I tell you, you are a little pebble and something that could be tossed or moved, not having the firm foundation of The Rock and foundation my Church needs."  This whole concept does not make any sense.  Christ already upgraded Peter from "grain of sand" to "rock" and then why would He praise him and then demote him down to a pebble in the same breath, and at the same time, completely negating His making Peter's name "rock" prior to all of this?  

This notion that Christ called Peter a pebble, or referred to him as a pebble, is not at all what Christ said, not only according to the Bible, but also according to many Protestant experts who admit this was a concoction of theological rhetoric established by early Protestant leaders.  It is a twisting of scripture and not biblical.  Christ said exactly what the verse says.  Christ intended to praise Peter and "upon this rock" = "upon Peter" as the foundation, build His Church for Peter to be the great steward of, among the other stewards, or the other apostles.

Because of the opposing belief to what the Catholic Church teaches, there is a linguistics challenge as well on what words Christ said when you spoke the verses in Mathew 16:18.  Allow us to analyze that as well because language is so important in the bible and a lot of it was not intended to be read as we read English today.

"Petros" means a small movable stone, "Petra" means a large rock.  It appears that size and stability is what is in question here when the Protestant view claims Christ was just mentioning that Peter is a pebble and could be tossed around with no strong foundation.  However, again, there is no where in the bible that supports that size and stability have an bearing on whether or not the person was important or not. 

On the contrary, it is important to note that Christ himself was referred to as a moving rock in 1st Corinthians 10:4.  "That rock was Chirst and it moved through them and followed them in the desert."  So why is Jesus called a Petra in 1st Corinthians 10:4? Does that make Jesus any less perfect of powerful? Absolutely not.  Technically there is nothing in the Greek itself to make that distinction whether Christ was telling Peter he was a big rock or a small pebble.  In fact, the Protestant Lexicons, or the dictionaries of Greek, actually admit that this was an ideology that was made up by Protestants of the old, but there is nothing in Greek itself to support it.  

So in being consistent, we have to take this argument and compare it to the rest to he bible, Petra was also used to describe a rock that can move.

In Fact, 1st Corinthians 10:4  That rock was Chirst  who was Petra and it moved through them and followed them in the desert"  Christ was a movable rock and that has no effect on Him being perfect.  So why is Jesus called a Petra in 1st Corinthians 10:4 as a moving rock?  Does that mean Christ himself was wobbly and possibly able to error because he was a moving rock?  The point here is, is that this idea of a rock not being stable or not big enough is a complete man made ideology and has no biblical soundness to it.  It is not about movability or immovability, it is a false ideology made up by Protestant leaders from earlier times which is admitted to be wrong teaching by the same protestant leaders in today's church, via their own Protestant Lexicons.

So what is going on with the language question of "upon this rock I will build my church" and what did Jesus actually say… 

1) Jesus spoke Aramaic and was speaking in Aramaic when he communicated Matthew 16:18.  He used the word Kefa which is the only form of the word rock in Aramaic, therefore it is impossible that Jesus would have used two forms of a word for Rock, or used another word for rock, because there isn't another word for rock in the language he spoke.

A very influential protestant Craig Blomberg, of the Denver Seminary agrees that Peter is the rock and there was no way there was any confusion on what Christ was saying. He also acknowledges that there was only one word for rock which Christ could have used, therefore referring to Peter as the rock.  Blomberg is one of MANY protestant scholars that admit and acknowledge this same understanding.  

2) As a second point of thought, we have to remember that Christ spoke in Aramaic, as described above.  The opposing argument implies that He was speaking to the Apostles in Greek when he said Matthew 16:18, which is historically and biblically not correct.  However, the second challenge to that, assuming for a moment that it was true, Christ would have then misspoke in Greek.  It is impossible for Christ to error or misspeak so the idea that he misspoke in Greek is nonsensical.  The Greek word that was used for "massive rock" is a feminine noun, Petras.  Greek, like Latin, is a gender driven language therefore when it is translated gender is always taken into account and as equally as important as to what is being said.  So that as fact, it would have been inappropriate and grammatically incorrect for Jesus to have called Peter a feminine noun to describe Peter, who is male.  That would have been a blatant error in speech, which Christ is not capable of.  The only difference between Petras and Petros is that one is masculine and one is feminine, not that one is big and one is small, as a fact according to Greek language.

Where did Petras come from?  It came from Matthew's translation when recording his gospel.  Matthew when writing this translation down in Greek later on, had to use the masculine name for rock, "Petros", in order to make it grammatically correct because otherwise it would not have made any sense whatsoever calling Peter a feminine noun.  That is why when you read the bible, "Petros" is used, but in fact, was not used by Christ and in no way intended by Christ to mean anything other than a rock, which he verbally spoke in Aramaic.  

3) And as a matter of fact as a third thought, The bible was also written in "Koine Greek".  There were two forms of Greek back then, "Atic Greek" and "Koine Greek".  The minor discrepancy between Petras and Petros ONLY exits in Atic Greek.  The Gospel was written in Koine Greek in which Petras and Petros meant ROCK plain and simple.

Let's continue comparing scripture to scripture as we all agree is the ONLY way to truly understand the bible.  The Bible proves again that Peter's name was changed to The Rock when Paul refers to Peter as Kefa, the Aramaic word for Rock, in Galatians chapter 1 and 2.  Why would Paul call him Kefa if his real name was supposed to be "Petros".  That means either Paul or Jesus were calling Peter by the wrong name throughout the bible.

There is a definitive book on Peter as THE ROCK, from which I pulled a lot of this information from, written by an acclaimed Protestant Minister, Oscar Cullmann  in his book "Peter, Disciple Apostle and Martyr".  He says it is very clear that Peter is the rock and the chosen head of the Apostles.  He also agrees and confirms that there was only one word for Rock when Christ spoke. Oscar Cullmann is one of the most respected Protestant scholars in the 21st century, which begs the question, which Protestant is right with the other Protestants that disagree with this position? Or, who holds the authority to decide what is right?  Here are other undeniable truths about Peter's supremacy which fall throughout the bible repeatedly.

1) Peter's role as always #1 in the gospels and book of Acts - every time Peter's name is mentioned, he is first on the list, which is consistent throughout the entire bible.    

2) In a concordance study, I found Peter is specifically named in the Gospels 196 times.  John is the only one who is specifically named closest to Peter and his name is mentioned only 29 times.  Throughout the bible, it would mostly say "Peter and the 12" or "Peter and those with him" when referring to the Apostles.  It cannot be denied that Peter held a special role among the Apostles when you take the bible itself at face value.

3) Both James and Peter where thrown into prison, James was put to death but Peter was supernaturally released from prison by God.  This is just another example to show Peter's role and his special place that God has chosen him for.

The major question lies in the following sentences after Christ proclaims Peter as rock, upon which He will build His church, 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Christ moves from Prophetic, Priestly language, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" …  to Kingly language: "and I give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you loose/ bind on earth will be loosed/bind in heaven.”  Here Christ anoints him and passes on the keys, the power, of His church.  It was common in those days when someone would receive the keys to a kingdom or the keys to a certain property, they were in charge of the property and were to procure it for the master.  So the symbolism of Christ using the word "keys" has monumental significance and meaning of why Christ chose to use those exact words because of what they meant.