A direct appeal to Mt 16:18 greatly obscures the number of steps that have to be interpolated in order to get us from Peter to the papacy. Let’s jot down just a few of these intervening steps:
a) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to “Peter.”
b) The promise of Mt 16:18 has “exclusive” reference to Peter.
c) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to a Petrine “office.”
d) This office is “perpetual”
e) Peter resided in “Rome”
f) Peter was the “bishop” of Rome
g) Peter was the “first” bishop of Rome
h) There was only “one” bishop at a time
i) Peter was not a bishop “anywhere else.”
j) Peter “ordained” a successor
k) This ceremony “transferred” his official prerogatives to a successor.
l) The succession has remained “unbroken” up to the present day.
Lets go back and review each of these twelve separate steps:
(a) V18 may not even refer to Peter. “We can see that ‘Petros’ is not the “petra’ on which Jesus will build his church…In accord with 7:24, which Matthew quotes here, the ‘petra’ consists of Jesus’ teaching, i.e., the law of Christ. ‘This rock’ no longer poses the problem that ‘this’ is ill suits an address to Peter in which he is the rock. For that meaning the text would have read more naturally ‘on you.’ Instead, the demonstrative echoes 7:24; i.e., ‘this rock’ echoes ‘these my words.’ Only Matthew put the demonstrative with Jesus words, which the rock stood for in the following parable (7:24-27). His reusing it in 16:18 points away from Peter to those same words as the foundation of the church…Matthew’s Jesus will build only on the firm bedrock of his law (cf. 5:19-20; 28:19), not on the loose stone Peter. Also, we no longer need to explain away the association of the church’s foundation with Christ rather than Peter in Mt 21:42,” R. Gundry, Matthew (Eerdmans 1994), 334.
(b) Is falsified by the power-sharing arrangement in Mt 18:17-18 & Jn 20:23.
(c) The conception of a Petrine office is borrowed from Roman bureaucratic categories (officium) and read back into this verse. The original promise is indexed to the person of Peter. There is no textual assertion or implication whatsoever to the effect that the promise is separable from the person of Peter.
(d) In 16:18, perpetuity is attributed to the Church, and not to a church office.
(e) There is some evidence that Peter paid a visit to Rome (cf. 1 Pet 5:13). There is some evidence that Peter also paid a visit to Corinth (cf. 1 Cor 1:12; 9:5).
(f) This commits a category mistake. An Apostle is not a bishop. Apostleship is a vocation, not an office, analogous to the prophetic calling. Or, if you prefer, it’s an extraordinary rather than ordinary office.
(g) The original Church of Rome was probably organized by Messianic Jews like Priscilla and Aquilla (cf. Acts 18:2; Rom 16:3). It wasn’t founded by Peter. Rather, it consisted of a number of house-churches (e.g. Rom 16; Hebrews) of Jewish or Gentile membership—or mixed company.
(h) NT polity was plural rather than monarchal. The Catholic claim is predicated on a strategic shift from a plurality of bishops (pastors/elders) presiding over a single (local) church—which was the NT model—to a single bishop presiding over a plurality of churches. And even after you go from (i) oligarchic to (ii) monarchal prelacy, you must then continue from monarchal prelacy to (iii) Roman primacy, from Roman primacy to (iv) papal primacy, and from papal primacy to (v) papal infallibility. So step (h) really breaks down into separate steps—none of which enjoys the slightest exegetical support.
(j) Peter also presided over the Diocese of Pontus-Bithynia (1 Pet 1:1). And according to tradition, Antioch was also a Petrine See (Apostolic Constitutions 7:46.).
(j)-(k) This suffers from at least three objections: i) These assumptions are devoid of exegetical support. There is no internal warrant for the proposition that Peter ordained any successors. ii) Even if he had, there is no exegetical evidence that the imposition of hands is identical with Holy Orders. iii) Even if we went along with that identification, Popes are elected to papal office, they are not ordained to papal office. There is no separate or special sacrament of papal orders as over against priestly orders. If Peter ordained a candidate, that would just make him a pastor (or priest, if you prefer), not a Pope.
(l) This cannot be verified. What is more, events like the Great Schism falsify it in practice, if not in principle.
These are not petty objections. In order to get from Peter to the modern papacy you have to establish every exegetical and historical link in the chain. To my knowledge, I haven’t said anything here that a contemporary Catholic scholar or theologian would necessarily deny. They would simply fallback on a Newmanesque principle of dogmatic development to justify their position. But other issues aside, this admits that there is no straight-line deduction from Mt 16:18 to the papacy. What we have is, at best, a chain of possible inferences. It only takes one broken link anywhere up or down the line to destroy the argument. Moreover, only the very first link has any apparent hook in Mt 16:18. Except for (v), all the rest depend on tradition and dogma. Their traditional support is thin and equivocal while the dogmatic appeal is self-serving.
The prerogatives ascribed to Peter in 16:19 (”binding and loosing” are likewise conferred on the Apostles generally in 18:18. The image of the “keys” (v19a) is used for Peter only, but this is a figure of speech—while the power signified by the keys was already unpacked by the “binding and loosing” language, so that no distinctively Petrine prerogative remains in the original promise. In other words, the “keys” do not refer to a separate prerogative that is distinctive to Peter. That confuses the metaphor with its literal referent.
Regarding Isa 22:22—as E.J. Young has noted, “This office is not made hereditary. God promises the key to Eliakim but not to his descendants. The office continues, but soon loses its exalted character. It was Eliakim the son of Hilkiah who was exalted, and not the office itself. Eliakim had all the power of a “Rabshakeh,” [the chief of drinking], and in him the Assyrian might recognize a man who could act for the theocracy…Whether Eliakim actually was guilty of nepotism or not, we are expressly told that at the time (”in that day” when they hang all the glory of his father’s house upon him he will be removed. Apparently the usefulness of the office itself will have been exhausted…The usefulness of Eliakim’s exalted position was at an end: were it to continue as it was under Eliakim it would not be for the welfare of the kingdom; its end therefore must come,” the Book of Isaiah (Eerdmans 1982), 116-18.
More generally, every argument for Petrine primacy is an argument against papal primacy since the more that Catholicism plays up the unique authority of Peter, as over against the Apostolic college, the less his prerogatives are transferable to a line of successors. There’s a basic tension between the exclusivity of his office vis-à-vis the Apostolate and the inclusivity of his office vis-à-vis the Episcopate.
Or that Paul would not be required to get permission from Peter to send these letters...
Or that Peter was directed to preach to the Jews considering they would go into obscurity shortly after the commission and would become very insignificant as a population numbers wise...And that Paul was given the commission to go to the Gentiles who ultimately would number into the billions...
Paul revealed (from God) the working of the church and salvation by grace thru faith without works...If there ever was a pope, it had to have been Paul...
So we have this religion that can be identified by:
Mat 23:5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
Mat 23:6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
Mat 23:7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
AND:
Mar 12:38 And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces,
Mar 12:39 And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts:
Mar 12:40 Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation.
AND:
1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
AND:
Mat 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
And give the title of God Almighty to a mere man:
Joh 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
It is the Catholic religion that is identified by these things which we are warned against in the scriptures...
Wake up, Catholics...
There is a serious problem for the RCC if they hold to the contention that the reference in 1Peter 5 is to Rome. The reference to Rome as “Babylon” was much later than Peter’s writings. Any reference to Rome in any writings is long after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. 1 Peter was written around 10 years before that. It is impossible to find any reference to Rome as Babylon prior to that.
On the other hand we do know that there was a church in literal Babylon and it was a large center for Jews to which Peter was the apostle. We also know that literal Babylon was where many of the Jews went after the destruction of the second temple in 70AD. Babylon was a large center for Jewry and the move to Babylon increased after the Bar Kokhba war in 132-35AD. We know the city was still there when Trajan entered Babylon in 115AD. It wasn’t until around 200AD that Babylon was deserted. There is no reason to believe either from scripture or history that Peter was not writing from literal Babylon in 1 Peter 5.
If the RCC insists on Rome being refered to in 1 Peter 5 than they must also concede that John was writing about Rome in Rev. 17.
Revelation 17:5 and on her forehead a name was written, a mystery, “BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.”
Is Peter writing from Rome in 1 Peter 5 and is Rome indeed the “mother of harlots”?
Good post.
But Rome has infallibly declared that she is infallible, when speaking according to her infallibly declared scope and subject-based formula, even if that is not necessarily a formal infallible exegesis of Mat. 16:18 (as the reasoning and arguments behind an infallible decree are not necessarily infallible). Which verse can also mean, “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (CCC, pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the ancients concur with, as does Scripture for the Object of said faith being the Rock. (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)
An interesting essay. However, we have the requirement of succession, as in Mattias and as in Timothy and Titus. Petrine 'supremacy' is actually first among equals, rather than true supremacy.
As usual, this exhibits a profound lack of understanding of the progression of the Church, which while still the same Church as in the NT in substance, if not form, as well as a lack of understanding of the primacy of Peter, within the Church.
As you note, the authority to bind and loose is given to all the Apostles, but Peter was singled out, not just in the passage regarding the keys, but in many others as well.
The papacy is not a dictatorship or monarchy, but a seat of authority and leadership, which is always administered in communion with the other bishops.
Let’s look at the example of the Council of Jerusalem. Peter and Paul come to the council made up of the leaders of the church. Peter makes his case, explaining the revelation the Lord gave him in a dream. Paul testifies to the works done for the Gentiles and James then solidifies the consent of all with his verdict.
Peter does not just say this is the way it’s going to be. The leaders came together and consulted each other and the Holy Spirit guided them to accept the truth.
Later on, we have Paul receiving a revelation and then going to consult the others regarding his preaching.
The pope does not just make arbitrary pronouncements in a vacuum. That is why doctrines come as a result of a council and always comes under “we” not “I”.
It is noteworthy too that just as the deity and two natures of Jesus were officially defined, ALL of the official doctrines of the church came over a course of generations, sometimes centuries.
As we look back through all of salvation history, we see that God ALWAYS gives His people a leader. Abraham, Moses, Joseph, David and with each new leader is a renewing of the covenant and a broadening of it to include more and more people.
Jesus is the leader of the new covenant and of the church, but He works through those human leaders of the church through the Holy Spirit.
The problem is with thinking that every exact situation the Church has faced and will face was specifically covered in Scriptures. The Bible is not an exhaustive historical record, but a spiritual, doctrinal and congregational guide.
This is why the writings of the early church fathers are so important. They are not the Bible but they leave us a record of how the church was understood in the first few generations after Christ and how the hierarchy developed and why the church has its center in Rome.
Discount it all you want, but the proof is in the pudding and from the accounts of early Christians, we know that the Church in Rome was considered to be the See of Peter, because he was martyred there.
There isn’t a single writing from any early Christian that says differently.