This is the last of a 3-part series responding to Nathan Barker’s article entitled “Was Peter the First Pope?”. In it Nathan makes the following statement:

The whole Roman Catholic structure is based on three false presuppositions:

1. That the text of Mathew 16:16-20 means that Peter was the foundation of the Church, that the Church was built on him;

2. That Peter went to Rome and was the first bishop in Rome;

3. That Peter s successors are the bishops of Rome under the primacy of the Pope.

If even one of these presuppositions is a lie, then the Church of Rome has no foundation. Biblically speaking all three presuppositions are fabrications, as we will show.

We have established the biblical evidence supporting Peter as the "rock" foundation and authoritative leadership role in the early church in the first article. We have also shown how the statement that "Peter was never in Rome" is completely false. This piece will deal with the third "presupposition", that Peter's successors are the bishops of Rome under the primacy of the Pope.

Nate says: "The position of the Apostles was unique to them and to Paul, all directly chosen by Christ Jesus with no hint of succession."

First, it must be established that the term "pope" was not used early on, but then again, neither were the terms "Trinity" or "Bible" part of the Christian vocabulary until later. In His parable of the Mustard Seed, Jesus compared His church to a small seed which would grow into maturity; therefore, one cannot expect an exact replica of Jesus' church from the 1st Century. The word "pope" means "father" (from the Greek pappas and the Latin papa). Of course God is our Father, but scripture is full of examples of men being called "father", too - Stephen calls Jewish leaders "fathers" (Acts 7:2), Paul calls Jerusalem Jews "fathers" (Acts 21:40, 22:1), Abraham is called "father of us all" (Rom 4:16-17), and so on. [See also 1 Cor 4:14-15, 1 Tim 1:2, Titus 1:4, Heb 12:7-9, 1 Thess 2:11, Philem 10, 1 Jn 2:3,14] The pope is merely the spiritual father to the church, and the concept of spiritual fatherhood is examined in more detail here.

The essential question is this: Why would Jesus take the trouble to chose 12 men to be His Apostles (Jn 15:16), give them His mission to be carried out (Jn 20:21) and give them the authority to speak with His voice (Lk 10:16, Mt 28:18-20) - only to have it end when He was no longer on earth? The answer is that He didn't intend for that to happen. No, Jesus knew that they would not be able to "preach to all nations" during their own lifetimes. The job of spreading the gospel eventually would need to be handed over to the Apostles' successors, and Jesus promised to be with them for ALL ages (Mt 28:20). For example, in Luke 22:19, Jesus commanded them to offer the forms of bread and wine "in memory of me" - there is absolutely no biblical basis for claiming that this was to end with the death of the last Apostle; therefore, there must be successors to carry this out. Perhaps this concept is seen most clearly in the early days right after Jesus' Crucifixion, when Peter took the initiative to get a replacement for Judas, the 12th Apostle:

"In those days Peter stood up among the brethen (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry...For it is written in the book of Psalms, 'Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and 'His office let another take.' (Acts 1:15-17,20)

In effect, Peter announced that Judas' office of Apostle was a successive one because another one had to take his place. Note that the emphasis is on the office, not the person - people will live and die, but the office must continue. This why Irenaeus, writing in A.D. 189, said "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." (Against Heresies, 3:3:3) So, they drew straws and Matthias took his place. Just as priestly duties in the Old Testament were initiated by casting lots (1 Chron 24:5, 1 Chron 25:8, 1 Chron 24:31), the same occurred in the New Testament (Luke 1:8-9). The early church replaced Judas by the same method: "And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles" (Acts 1:26). This would not have been necessary if apostolic succession was not necessary. Instead, as the church grew, leaders were ordained so that the mission could continue:

Titus 1:5 "This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you."

Acts 14:22-23 "...strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God. And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed."

How did this take place? Through the laying on of hands (Acts 6:6, 1 Tim 5:22, Acts 13:3, 1 Tim 4:14, 2 Tim 1:6) This is why Paul told the young bishop Timothy, "So you, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will have the ability to teach others as well." (2 Tim 2:1-2) Even IF workers were ordained like Scripture shows (which they are not), they cannot demonstrate that their ordination goes back the the Apostles. Their claim to apostolic succession is mere wishful thinking.

Patrick Madrid provides a succinct summary of apostolic succession as seen in Paul's writing to Timothy:

1) I, Paul, have received an apostolic mission from Christ (2 Tim 1:1).

2) I have given you, Timothy, this apostolic ministry and authority through the laying on of my hands when I ordained you a bishop (2 Tim 1:6).

3) Be careful, Timothy, in handing on this apostolic ministry you possess to others, so that they in turn will be wise enough to hand it on to the next generation of bishops (2 Tim 2:2). (Pope Fiction, Basilica Press: 1999, p. 73)

The line of succession is quite clear:

Paul

Timothy

others

next generation

This is why the Catholic Church teaches that "In order that the mission entrusted to them might be continued after their death, [the apostles] consigned, by will and testament, as it were, to their immediate collaborators the duty of completing and consolidating the work they had begun, urging them to tend the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit had appointed them to shepherd the Church of God. They accordingly designated such men and then made the ruling that likewise on their death other proven men should take over their ministry" (CCC 861) This is how Christianity survived. The Apostles transmitted what they had learned to their successors, so that they could know how to guide the church. This Apostolic Tradition is how the doctrine of the Trinity was solidified, the canon of Scripture was determined, and various controversies were handled.

So, just as the authority of the Apostles is a continuous one, the primacy of the leader of the Apostles - Peter - is also a continuous one. There is absolutely no scriptural evidence that proves otherwise. Or, as Pat Madrid asks, "What other significant arrangement (aside from a period of providing a general revelation) did Christ ever make for His church that was intended to be temporary?" (Pope Fiction, p. 83). There is none, because it is a perpetual church with a successive leadership. Apostolic succession is scriptural. Even though Peter held a uniquely authoritative position among the Apostles, he was still one of the Apostles. Therefore, Peter's office of leader of the Apostles (and therefore the entire church) was ALSO a continuous one.

Another reason why belief that Peter had successors is scriptural is because Jesus is quoting a section of Isaiah 22 when he confers authority onto Peter in Matthew 16:16-19:

"On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah:
I will clothe him with your robe,
and gird him with your sash,
and give over to him your authority.
He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah.
I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder;
when he opens, no one shall shut,
when he shuts, no one shall open. I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family;
On him shall hang all the glory of his family:
descendents and offspring..." (Isaiah 22:20-24)

Note first the Eliakim is considered a "father" by the prophet Isaiah. Is he speaking literally here? Of course not - Isaiah recognized, just as the Catholic Church recognizes, that we can have spiritual fathers. This is the reason why the pope (and priests) are called "father".

Now, a key is a symbol of authority in Scripture, as are the robe and sash: Protestant scholar F.F. Bruce comments: "And what about the 'keys of the kingdom'? The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or majordomo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of authority entrusted to him. About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim (Is 22:22):...So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward." (The Hard Sayings of Jesus, Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1983, pp 143-144). "The holy one, the true, who hold the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall open" (Rev 3:7). Jesus Christ has supreme authority over the heavenly house of David, the "new Jerusalem", and He delegated this authority to Peter in Matthew 16 by quoting Isaiah 22 to the Jews who would have known well the Old Testament Scriptures. The similarities between the two passages are numerous and unmistakable:

ISAIAH 22
"I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut; when he shuts, no one shall open. I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot."

MATTHEW 16
"You are Peter (rock) and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Put more simply:

Peg = rock

Key of the House of David = Keys to the kingdom of heaven

open and shut = bind and loose

In the Old Testament there was an office of the "master of the palace" (also known as the steward, the vizier, or majordomo). This was a position of great authority, as seen with Jotham, the king's son and Joseph with the Pharaoh (see also 1 Kings 4:6, 18:3, Is 36:3, 37:2, and 2 Chron 26:21):

2 Kings 15:5 "The Lord afflicted the king, and he was a leper to the day of his death. He lived in a house apart, while Jotham, the king's son, was vizier and regent for the people of the land."

Genesis 41:39-40 "So Pharaoh said to Joseph: 'Since God has made all this known to you, no one can be as wise and discerning as you are. You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people shall dart at your command. Only in respect to the throne shall I outrank you'."

Likewise, the office of steward/vizier/majordomo in the Isaiah passage was previously occupied by Shebna (Is 22:15), but he was replaced by Eliakim (Is 22:20). Just as in the United States where the office of President is a successive one, so is the office of the master of the palace. Jesus, in effect, was making Peter "master of the palace" in the New Testament, and therefore this office must have successors. It must be noted that Peter is NOT a replacement for Jesus, since as Revelation 3:7 shows, the keys still belong to Jesus: "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 sovereign's power and authority as they are entrusted to his prime minister for a period of time to act for the sovereign in fulfilling the sovereign's wishes. The sovereign, or king, never relinquishes his authority during this period of delegation. At the end of the period of delegation, the king reassumes his total command and authority over the kingdom. Jesus Christ, while still retaining his sovereignty, entrusted the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter (and his successors) on earth until the end of time." (Jesus, Peter & the Keys, Butler, Dahlgren, and Hess: Queenship Publishing Co, 1996; p. 39)

Jesus gave Peter the power to "bind and loose", which is a specific manifestation of the chief steward's authority, just as Eliakim was given the power to "open and shut". These terms were known well by Jews of that time to mean to prohibit or permit, establish rules, etc. In Word Studies in the New Testament, it reads, "Those opposed to the Catholic Church often try to reduce "binding" and "loosing" simply to the opening of the gates of heaven to the Gentiles. However, in so doing they ignore the meaning of the words within the culture at the time of Jesus. These words are defined in The Illustrated Bible Dictionary as 'rabbinic terms used in Mt 16:19 of Peter's doctrinal authority to declare things forbidden or permitted; and in Mt 18:18 of the disciples' disciplinary authority to condemn and absolve'." The Protestant text Beacon Bible Commentary states:

"Even more striking [than the keys] is Jesus' statement that whatever Peter bound on earth would be bound in heaven, and whatever he loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven. What is meant by bind and loose? M'Neile explains: "Bind" and "loose" appear to represent the Aramaic...technical terms for the verdict of a teacher of the Law who, on the strength of his expert knowledge of the oral tradition, declared some action or thing "bound" i.e., forbidden, or "loosed" i.e. permitted. In other words, Peter would give decisions based on the teachings of Jesus, which would be bound in heaven; that is, honored by God." Raplph Earle "Matthew" in A.F. Harper and others, eds., (vol 6, Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1964). p 156

Scriptural examples of Peter's authority to bind and loose are seen when he infallibly interprets two separate passages to mean that a replacement must be found for Judas among the remaining Apostles (Acts 1), and also when Peter infallibly states that the Gentile converts will not be held to the requirements of the Mosaic Law at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15).

The Scriptural evidence for the authority of the chief steward (in this case - Peter) is irrefutable, as even agreed to by many Protestant scholars, but what about Peter's successors? In his excellent work Upon This Rock, Stephen Ray writes:

"The Catholic Church has consistently taught from the first centuries that the office of Peter is an office that continues to exist and exercise the authority of the keys. What can we learn from the ancient kingdoms and their office of vizier and steward 'over the house' about succession?

The vizier was an office of supreme importance to the kingdom of Egypt. It should be remembered that it was not aperson, but an office. When the vizier died the office did not. The office continued to exist, and in the event of death or displacement, another man would be appointed to fill the vacant office. Likewise, the presidency of the United States or secretariat of state is an office, not a person. When the president of the United States dies, it is a matter of immediate concern. All parties mobilize to invest a new man with the authority of the office. In this case the vice-president automatically succeeds to the position. The presidential seal remains firmly ensconced above the office of the president of the United States. Over the years men have, through succession, sworn the oath of office - the same seal remains over each of them as the symbol of authority andlegal succession.

In some Eyptian dynasties the vizier would outlive or outlast several successive pharaohs. We also know that the vizier system within the Egyptian dynasties was "powerful, almost hereditary" (The World of the Bible, ed. A.S. Van der Wonde, Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans: 1986, p 231) The office of vizier was present throughout the dynasties. It was an office that persisted through the centuries, with vizier succeeding one after another. We can see a glimpse of this in the kingdom of the Medes and the Persians. When the wicked Haman, the vizier in possession of the royal seal, attempted to commit genocide on the Jews, he was hung by the neck. Mordecai the Jew succeeded to his office and, as a sign, was given the royal seal (Esther 8:1-2). The majordomo dies, the office does not. There is always a succession of "personnel".

What about our other example, Shebna the steward and Eliakim his successor? 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 Pter and to speak of Eliakim succeeding Shebna. Fundamentalist Harry A. Ironside writes, "The successor of Shebna was Eliakim" (Expository Notes on the Prophet Isaiah, Neptune, J.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 successor." (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. But that is not all; let us look a little farther.

How long had the office of steward existed as an official office in Israel (and Judah), or, in other words, how many years had the "key of David" and the power to "open and shut" been passed down from one royal steward to the next? During the reign of Solomon, we first discover Ahishar, who is "over the house" in 1 Kings 4:6. Ahishar seems to be the first person recorded in the Bible to be delegated with the keys of David, though he is not necessarily the first royal steward. Next we find Arza as steward "over the house" during the reign of King Elah (1 Kings 16:9). The nex recorded steward is Obadiah, who was "over the house" during the reign of King Ahab (1 Kings 18:3). About 150 years later, Isaiah prophesies against Shebna and foretells the appointment of his successor, Eliakim. The Scriptures show us that the office of steard was one of succession - it was always filled. The keys of David were passed from one steward to the next throughout the history of Israel and later also in Judah. Since Jesus restored the throne of David, he also restored the office of royal steward. Jesus succeeded David; Peter succeeded Eliakim. Actually, the Pope is a successor not only of Peter but also, in a sense, of the first royal steward from the Davidic kingdom.

Butler explains the parallel successions of king and steard "What two roles are in this line of succession? The roles of the king and his prime minister rule in parallel lines of succession, one passed on from generation to generation through offspring and issue, the other through appointment." (Jesus, Peter & the Keys, p 51) [Ray, Upon This Rock, Ignatius Press 1999: pp 289-291)

So, in the face of overwhelming proof for a successor to Peter, the burden of proof rests upon Nathan Barker, who would deny apostolic succession, not me. God's promise to Eliakim was to him and his successors (Is 22:240, as Tertullian wrote, "This is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter." (Demurrer Against the Heretics, 32:2): Peter's pre-eminent authority and his successors were accepted without argument among the early Christians:

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build my church...' [Matt 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus..." - Augustine, Letters 53:1:2

"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." - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:3

"Victor...was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter." - The Little Labyrinth in Eusebius' Church History

"Number the priests even from that seat of Peter. And in that order of fathers see to whom succeeded: that is the rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer." Augustine, Psalmus contr Partem Donati

Who are you going to believe - Nathan, or the earliest Christians who actually were there?

PRIMACY OF THE BISHOP OF ROME

Peter is mentioned 195 times in the New Testament, more than any other Apostles combined. Peter alone had his name changed to mean "rock", Peter alone was givent the keys to Jesus' kingdom as chief steward, Peter was given the authority to "bind and loose". Peter alone received Jesus' prayer to strengthen his brethren (Lk 22:32), and the risen Jesus first appeared to Peter (Lk 24:34). Peter led the Apostles in preaching at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), he received the first converts (Acts 2:41), performed the first miracle at Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment on Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11). He excommunicated the first heretic, Simon Magnus (Acts 8:21) and received the vision from God to begin allowing the Gentiles into the church (Acts 10:44-46). He led the first council (Acts 15:7) and pronounced his first dogmatic decision there (Acts 15:19). He infallibly wrote 2 epistles. The sheer volume of Scriptural evidence behind Peter's primacy is irrefutable, and therefore the earliest Christians accepted his (and his successor's authority):

"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." - Clement of Rome,Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians,1,59:1 (c.A.D. 96),

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." - Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110),

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that 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 [by pointing out] 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 pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180),

"Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate..." - Victor I A.D. 189-198,in Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, 24:

"Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid...Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" - Stephen I A.D. 254-257, Firmilian to Cyprian, Epistle 74/75:17 (A.D. 256)

CONCLUSION

It has been shown, therefore, that all 3 of Nate's plaguarized objections about Peter crumbles like sand. Matthew 16:16-19 proves that Peter alone was blessed by Jesus, Peter alone had his name changed to mean "rock", Peter alone was given the keys to the kingdom, and Peter alone was given the initial authority to bind and loose. These facts are so undeniable that they are accepted by many Protestant scholars as well. Peter alone was instituted by Jesus as chief shepherd of His flock (Jn 21:15-17) and instructed to strengthen his brethren (Lk 22:32). Peter guided the fledgling church during early controversies (Acts 1, 10, 15) and led the church in spreading the gospel at Pentecost and beyond. His name is mentioned 195 times in the New Testament, far more than any other apostle. Peter was not meant to replace Jesus, only represent Him on earth.

The objection that Peter was never in Rome is BOTH irrelevant AND wrong. It does not matter if Peter was in Rome at all; what matters is that Peter's primacy was instituted by Christ and recognized by the Church and his successors. Furthermore, the biblical, historical, and archeological evidence proving Peter's presence in Rome absolutely destroys the ignorant protestations of revisionist historians who will stoop to any depth to reject the authority of the papacy, in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Our Savior was not in the habit of making idle gestures. When called His Apostles for His mission, there is absolutely no biblical evidence to suggest that this mission was to end with either Jesus' death & resurrection or the death of the last apostles. Instead, Christ instituted a perpetual (Lk 1:32-33, Mt 16:18, Jn 14:16) apostolic (Jn 15:16, Jn 20:21, Lk 22:29-30, Jn 10:16, Eph 4:11, 1 Tim 3:1) and authoritative church (Mt 28:18-20, Lk 10:16) - one that would grow like the mustard seed. As Newman once remarked, the best proof of life is growth, and Christ's church grew with Peter and his successors for all generations to become the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15). The Church's infallibility stems from a divine source, not of her own merit, as Irenaeus wrote, "For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God, and where the Spirit of God, there the Church and every grace. The Spirit, however, is Truth." (Adv Heres 3:24:1)

|back|