St. Peter's Primacy and Mt. 16:18

Let's objectively test this popular interpretation by comparing it with facts about St. Peter's life and doctrine, as recorded throughout the Scriptures. The following are related facts that must not be overlooked:

(1) "Now when Jesus had come into Peter's house, He saw his wife's mother lying sick with a fever" (Mt. 8:14, NKJV).

St. Peter had a mother-in-law who was sick. This explicitly shows that the real St. Peter was a married man, for it is impossible to have a mother-in-law and not be married. If Peter was the first pope, he was also a married man! Why then does Catholicism forbid present-day popes to be married like Peter was? [1 Cor. 9:5 also shows Peter (or Cephas, Jn. 1:42) was married.]

(2) "When Peter came to Antioch, I [Paul] opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, 'You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?' " (Gal. 2:11-14).

St. Paul openly opposed St. Peter because Peter was "in the wrong." St. Paul would never have openly opposed St. Peter if he was the "visible head of the church." Can you imagine a Catholic bishop publicly opposing the Pope today? This single incident alone shows it is impossible for St. Peter to be "the head" of the church. Please read the aforementioned passage from Galatians again.

(3) If St. Peter was "the head" of the church, why did St. James preside over the first and only church council cited in the New Testament (Acts 15:6-30)? Peter was present, yet he did not preside over this important council dealing with circumcision and its non-role in salvation! This is one of the most powerful and clear proofs that St. Peter was not "the head" of the early church!

(4) Did Peter consider himself to be "the head" of the early church? The following are his own words about himself:

"To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed" (1 Pet. 5:1).

Peter wrote to other elders but never mentioned any primacy that he uniquely had, which was supposed to have begun at the point of Mt. 16:18! Peter merely referred to himself as "a fellow elder." (The Apostle John, likewise, referred to himself as an "elder," 2 Jn. 1.)

(5) "Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them" (Acts 8:14).

If St. Peter was "the head" of the apostles, he would have ordered other apostles to go to various places, but instead St. Peter (and St. John) were sent by the other apostles! Obviously, Peter was not the designated "head" of the apostles!

(6) If St. Peter was the head of the church (visibly), why did both St. John and St. Paul write more of the New Testament than he did? Peter wrote 2 books of the New Testament (or 8 chapters), while John wrote 5 books (or 50 chapters) and Paul at least 13 books (or at least 87 chapters). Both John and Paul wrote much more of the eternal Word of God than Peter did.

(7) If Peter was the "head" of the apostles, why did Paul work harder for the Lord than the rest of the Apostles, including him?

"But by the grace of God I [Paul] am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them--yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me" (1 Cor. 15:10)?

(8) If St. Peter was the head of the apostles, certainly the other apostles would have known it. However, they didn't! This is apparent since they argued about which of them was the "greatest," even while Jesus was still living among them!

(a) "Then a dispute arose among them as to which of them would be greatest" (Lk. 9:46).

(b) "Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest" (Lk. 22:24).

Clearly, this last passage occurred after Jesus spoke Mt. 16:18 and in Jesus' presence! Please note that Jesus never corrected them by saying Peter was made the "head" at the point of Mt. 16:18! The other apostles never thought that verse uniquely exalted Peter above themselves, so why should we?

(9) Present-day Popes have said that Mary is mediator, queen of heaven, mother of mercies, etc. but did St. Peter teach this way? What were St. Peter's doctrinal beliefs about salvation? According to him, does Mary play any role at all in salvation? Do we first go to her to get to Jesus? If so, Peter would have certainly known and taught so, but did he? What does the eternal record show? Peter said of Jesus:

(a) "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

(b) "To him all the prophets witness that, through his name, whoever believes in him will receive remission of sins" (Acts 10:43).

(c) "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they" (Acts 15:11).

Peter exalted Jesus and faith in his name for salvation with no mention of Mary, even in an indirect way!

It must also be noted that St. Peter NEVER mentioned Mary in either of his two books of the New Testament.

As with the other apostles, Peter likewise never mentioned the sacraments, church membership, attending mass, praying the Rosary, or any other Catholic distinctive as having any role in salvation at all! What then should we believe about Peter's Primacy and the proper interpretation of Mt. 16:18 when we consider the sum total of Scripture?

One thing is certain--the Bible is eternal truth. Furthermore, it was given to make us "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus," 2 Tim. 3:15! We are to go by the Bible and use it for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16). Jesus said that the Word of God will be our judge (Jn. 12:48), and the Word of God teaches that we must repent and place all (100%) of our trust in Jesus for our salvation (Jn. 3:18; Acts 20:21; 26:20; etc.). Baptism, holy communion, good works, church membership, subjection to the Pope, praying the Rosary and Mary cannot save us, according to the Bible! So why not believe the Bible? Could there be anything wrong with repenting and trusting Jesus 100% for our salvation?

Regarding Mt. 16:18, the Amplified Bible says:

"I tell you that you are Peter [Petros, masculine, a large piece of rock], and on this rock [petra, feminine, a huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My church. . . ."

Peter is "a large piece of rock," but the church is built on petra which means "a huge rock like Gibraltar"! Peter is also masculine gender and not feminine gender as petra is. The misuse of this verse has led people to wrongly believe that the church was built on St. Peter, who was supposed to have been "the visible head of the church" and the first Pope. Most importantly, such a belief about Peter from Mt. 16:18 has led to a wrong idea of how one finds salvation.

In summary, it is impossible to embrace the correct interpretation of Mt. 16:18 without considering the aforementioned facts of Peter's life and doctrines. Sadly, when one considers the sum total of the evidence, it must be stated that a distortion of Mt. 16:18 has led to the spiritual destruction of multitudes over the centuries. Dear reader, don't let this happen to you or your Catholic friends!