TLDR: The Biblical case for Peter having an office of unique leadership among the apostles and for the church is very strong but most people just miss it completely. Below is just scratching the surface.
eta: Simon was his name. PETER was the TITLE Simon was given.
----------------------
In addition to historical support, there is significant Biblical and NT support for Simon Peter being the first leader of the Christian Church. Catholics hold that Simon Peter was given a unique role (office) among the Apostles and for the Church making Peter the first Pope. Protestant's reject this claim. They will often make the case that if Peter was indeed given this type of authority or office we should see it clearly somewhere in Scripture but we don't. Protestants will make the case that nowhere in the NT is the word "Pope" found, and they see no evidence of Peter having a unique authority among the Apostles - and that all apostles shared equally in the powers to bind and loose given to them in Matthew 18:18. What I am putting forward is that the evidence for Peter's unique role among the Apostles and in the Church is everywhere in the NT so much so that most people reading the Bible today completely miss the evidence altogether.
Here is what I propose doing as a Biblical thought experiment or exercise:
What if every single time you read the name Peter in the NT you read "PETER"? NOT Peter as the name of a man, but rather as a title of significance given to Simon by Jesus? Most people casually read "Peter" in the same way they would read a name like James, John, Mark, or Joe. However, reading Peter's name this way is to gloss over the meaning of Simon's new title as if the two are interchangeable. The two are not exactly interchangeable. Almost the first thing Jesus tells Simon is that he will be called PETER (this is long before Simon's confession that Jesus is the Christ). I think for us to realize of the significance of what God was doing by giving Simon a new title/name, we need to do something similar by replacing the name Peter with something different. For example, I will use all caps to help make the distinction, but you could use "the ROCK" or "PROTOS" or "the CHIEF" or "insert your own name/title". The point is to help bring clarity to what is being conveyed by the NT writers.
Jesus never calls Simon by the name of Peter in the Bible, and the ONLY disciple that Jesus ever singles out in any of the Gospels and blesses by name is Simon, and this is done in all four Gospels. When the Apostles refer to PETER, they are not just referencing a nickname like the "Sons of Thunder" or Bubba, or something like calling John by Jack. The Apostles understood the significance of the title PETER, and so did the early church including St. Paul. Referring to Simon as PETER would be more like calling the president "Mr. President" instead of their given name. Replacing Peter with "PETER" or "PROTOS" would help the reader gain some of the meaning being conveyed with our 2,000-year removed reading comprehension of the NT writers and early church.
-------------------------------
The Scriptural Case for Peter as Pope:
First, all four gospel writers make it explicitly clear that Simon is chosen and named as PETER.
In every single list where the twelve are named - Simon "who is called PETER" is always listed first. Sometimes PETER is the only apostle named with the others being grouped together as "PETER and the eleven" or "PETER and the disciples". In Matthew, PETER is specifically named as the first, or PROTOS, which means chief in Greek. There are no lists or examples that exclude PETER.
In Matthew Jesus blesses Simon and bestows on him the title/name PETER which means Rock, and then specifically gives PETER the keys to the kingdom of Heaven with the powers to bind and loose.
In the Gospel of Luke we come to the Last Supper and after Jesus instituted the Eucharist Jesus warns that one of the disciples would betray him. The disciples began to question one another, and a dispute arose about who would betray Jesus. At the same time a dispute also arose about which one of them would be regarded as the greatest. Notice that Jesus does NOT answer them that they would all be equally the greatest. In contrast, Jesus declares in Luke 22 that Simon (who would be called PETER) would be their leader, although a servant leader. Sometimes we can miss the complete context because the non-inspired chapter breaks and headings interrupt and unconsciously influence our interpretation and comprehension.
This is what is says in Luke Chapter 22 beginning at verse 21:
If you replace Peter with PETER or PROTOS in your reading throughout the New Testament, it would be synonymous with replacing Peter with POPE. Today's sola-scriptura Christians have great difficulty seeing this because they read the Bible with a modern 21st Century lens and worldview and see Peter as a common name. Early Christians understood PETER's title signifying his office, and they understood PETER to mean something more than how we read the name Peter today.
In Mark 16 we see the Angel commanding Mary Magdalene & the other women to go and tell "his disciples and PETER" that the resurrected Jesus is going before them to Galilee. PETER hears the news and runs to the tomb to see for himself, and John waits for PETER before entering the tomb.
Now let's turn to John 21 where we see PETER decides to go fishing and six disciples join him but they are unable to catch a single fish all night. At daybreak Jesus commands them to cast their net again and they catch so many fish that the seven of them together cannot haul the fish in. But then at the command of Jesus, Simon PETER is able to single handedly haul the net of 153 large fish by himself, and the net was not torn (word for schism). They share breakfast with Jesus and when they are finished Jesus turns to Simon PETER and singles him out. Jesus asks Simon if he loves him more than these and commands Simon to feed his lambs, tend his sheep, feed his sheep. This is not simply a restoration of PETER, but this is Jesus commissioning PETER as the earthly shepherd of Jesus' flock. It is the prayer of Jesus that his Church be unified and not torn, which John 21 shows us this beautifully.
-----------------------
In Acts we see PETER step into his central, visible role leading the Apostles and the early church on behalf of Jesus and everything in the name of Jesus Christ. PETER exhibits primacy, leadership, and authority among the apostles and over the whole church and even the Sanhedrin documented by the early church. In Acts chapter 1 we see it was PETER who stood up among the Apostles, Mary, and about 120 people pronouncing the first judgement and recorded action of the post-ascension Church. It was one of Apostolic Succession by choosing Matthias to be numbered with the 11 apostles and fill the office Judas vacated. At Pentecost it was PETER, standing with the eleven, who gives the first sermon leading to the baptism of about 3,000 souls.
It was PETER who healed the lame beggar in Acts 3, and PETER who addressed the crowds teaching in the Temple in Solomon's Portico. It was PETER who boldly faced the Sanhedrin and spoke against them and displayed his authority in the name of Jesus. It was PETER who told Ananias he was not lying to man but to God immediately after which Ananias died. Three hours later it was PETER who again pronounced God's judgment on Sapphira when she likewise lied to him and therefore lied to the Holy Spirit. In Acts 5 the people even carried out the sick and laid them on cots and mats, that as PETER came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them that they might be healed.
It was "PETER and the apostles", not "Simon and the apostles". It was PETER who went to Samaria to lay hands on the newly baptized that they would receive the Holy Spirit. PETER healed the paralyzed Aeneas. It was PETER who went to Tabitha and raised her from the dead by the name of Jesus. In Acts 10 the Angel sent Cornelius to bring "Simon, who is called PETER", and while PETER was speaking to the Gentiles the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Gentiles (uncircumcised). PETER, without consulting the other Apostles, commanded that the Gentiles be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
At the Jerusalem Council where the apostles and elders were gathered to consider an important issue facing the Church and after there had been much debate - it was PETER that that stood up and ended the debate. PETER declared that "in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe." And with PETER's declaration all the assembly fell silent. PETER ended the debate and the Church listened to PETER and implemented what PETER declared in the name of the Holy Spirit. PETER was rescued from prison by an angel of the Lord who led PETER through the city's iron gate, which opened of its own power.
Reading the first 15 chapters of Acts we see PETER in a powerful role in the Church. Nowhere is any other apostle mentioned doing miracles on par with PETER. PETER speaks for the Holy Spirit, strikes people dead with a word, raises others from the dead, heals the lame and the sick, and the Bible tells us that people would hope to have PETER's shadow fall on them to be healed (not that of the eleven). PETER is clearly seen as something special in the early Church, and I would say shows PETER strengthening his brothers.
---------------------
So now let's look at the often quoted passage of Paul confronting PETER, and see how would your interpretation or understanding of Galatians 2 might be different if the following is how it was written:
------------------
I think the case that PETER was chosen by Christ to lead the apostles and his Church is undeniable, and the Scriptures bear strong witness to his special role. Cheers!
eta: Simon was his name. PETER was the TITLE Simon was given.
----------------------
In addition to historical support, there is significant Biblical and NT support for Simon Peter being the first leader of the Christian Church. Catholics hold that Simon Peter was given a unique role (office) among the Apostles and for the Church making Peter the first Pope. Protestant's reject this claim. They will often make the case that if Peter was indeed given this type of authority or office we should see it clearly somewhere in Scripture but we don't. Protestants will make the case that nowhere in the NT is the word "Pope" found, and they see no evidence of Peter having a unique authority among the Apostles - and that all apostles shared equally in the powers to bind and loose given to them in Matthew 18:18. What I am putting forward is that the evidence for Peter's unique role among the Apostles and in the Church is everywhere in the NT so much so that most people reading the Bible today completely miss the evidence altogether.
Here is what I propose doing as a Biblical thought experiment or exercise:
What if every single time you read the name Peter in the NT you read "PETER"? NOT Peter as the name of a man, but rather as a title of significance given to Simon by Jesus? Most people casually read "Peter" in the same way they would read a name like James, John, Mark, or Joe. However, reading Peter's name this way is to gloss over the meaning of Simon's new title as if the two are interchangeable. The two are not exactly interchangeable. Almost the first thing Jesus tells Simon is that he will be called PETER (this is long before Simon's confession that Jesus is the Christ). I think for us to realize of the significance of what God was doing by giving Simon a new title/name, we need to do something similar by replacing the name Peter with something different. For example, I will use all caps to help make the distinction, but you could use "the ROCK" or "PROTOS" or "the CHIEF" or "insert your own name/title". The point is to help bring clarity to what is being conveyed by the NT writers.
Jesus never calls Simon by the name of Peter in the Bible, and the ONLY disciple that Jesus ever singles out in any of the Gospels and blesses by name is Simon, and this is done in all four Gospels. When the Apostles refer to PETER, they are not just referencing a nickname like the "Sons of Thunder" or Bubba, or something like calling John by Jack. The Apostles understood the significance of the title PETER, and so did the early church including St. Paul. Referring to Simon as PETER would be more like calling the president "Mr. President" instead of their given name. Replacing Peter with "PETER" or "PROTOS" would help the reader gain some of the meaning being conveyed with our 2,000-year removed reading comprehension of the NT writers and early church.
-------------------------------
The Scriptural Case for Peter as Pope:
First, all four gospel writers make it explicitly clear that Simon is chosen and named as PETER.
- Matt 4:18: "He saw two brothers, Simon who is called PETER and Andrew his brother,"
- Mark 3:16: He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name PETER)"
- Luke 5:8: But when Simon PETER saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, "depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord."
- John 1:42: "You are Simon Son of John. You shall be called PETER."
In every single list where the twelve are named - Simon "who is called PETER" is always listed first. Sometimes PETER is the only apostle named with the others being grouped together as "PETER and the eleven" or "PETER and the disciples". In Matthew, PETER is specifically named as the first, or PROTOS, which means chief in Greek. There are no lists or examples that exclude PETER.
In Matthew Jesus blesses Simon and bestows on him the title/name PETER which means Rock, and then specifically gives PETER the keys to the kingdom of Heaven with the powers to bind and loose.
PETER is the only disciple to walk on water. In Matt 17 Jesus has PETER go fishing to catch the miraculous fish with the coin in its mouth to pay the temple tax for Jesus but notice how Jesus also includes the temple tax specifically for PETER as well, and not the others.Quote:
Matt 16:18: "And I tell you, you are PETER, and on this very rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you (singular) the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you (singular) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you (singular) loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (See also Isaiah 22:21)
In the Gospel of Luke we come to the Last Supper and after Jesus instituted the Eucharist Jesus warns that one of the disciples would betray him. The disciples began to question one another, and a dispute arose about who would betray Jesus. At the same time a dispute also arose about which one of them would be regarded as the greatest. Notice that Jesus does NOT answer them that they would all be equally the greatest. In contrast, Jesus declares in Luke 22 that Simon (who would be called PETER) would be their leader, although a servant leader. Sometimes we can miss the complete context because the non-inspired chapter breaks and headings interrupt and unconsciously influence our interpretation and comprehension.
This is what is says in Luke Chapter 22 beginning at verse 21:
So Jesus answers their dispute on the eve of his crucifixion by telling them all that Simon would be their leader and the one to strengthen and unify them. Jesus tells the disciples they each have their role and authority (thrones), but that Simon is to be the greatest among them. Jesus tells them that he has prayed specifically for Simon (PETER) that Simon's faith may not fail.Quote:
"But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!" And they began to question one another, which of them could it be who was going to do this. A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. And he said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For who is greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves. You are those who have stayed with me in my trials, and I assign to you, as my father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Simon, Simon, behold Satan demanded to have you all (plural), that he might sift you all (plural) like wheat, but I have prayed for you (Simon) that your faith may not fail. And when you (Simon) have turned again, strengthen your brothers."
If you replace Peter with PETER or PROTOS in your reading throughout the New Testament, it would be synonymous with replacing Peter with POPE. Today's sola-scriptura Christians have great difficulty seeing this because they read the Bible with a modern 21st Century lens and worldview and see Peter as a common name. Early Christians understood PETER's title signifying his office, and they understood PETER to mean something more than how we read the name Peter today.
In Mark 16 we see the Angel commanding Mary Magdalene & the other women to go and tell "his disciples and PETER" that the resurrected Jesus is going before them to Galilee. PETER hears the news and runs to the tomb to see for himself, and John waits for PETER before entering the tomb.
Now let's turn to John 21 where we see PETER decides to go fishing and six disciples join him but they are unable to catch a single fish all night. At daybreak Jesus commands them to cast their net again and they catch so many fish that the seven of them together cannot haul the fish in. But then at the command of Jesus, Simon PETER is able to single handedly haul the net of 153 large fish by himself, and the net was not torn (word for schism). They share breakfast with Jesus and when they are finished Jesus turns to Simon PETER and singles him out. Jesus asks Simon if he loves him more than these and commands Simon to feed his lambs, tend his sheep, feed his sheep. This is not simply a restoration of PETER, but this is Jesus commissioning PETER as the earthly shepherd of Jesus' flock. It is the prayer of Jesus that his Church be unified and not torn, which John 21 shows us this beautifully.
-----------------------
In Acts we see PETER step into his central, visible role leading the Apostles and the early church on behalf of Jesus and everything in the name of Jesus Christ. PETER exhibits primacy, leadership, and authority among the apostles and over the whole church and even the Sanhedrin documented by the early church. In Acts chapter 1 we see it was PETER who stood up among the Apostles, Mary, and about 120 people pronouncing the first judgement and recorded action of the post-ascension Church. It was one of Apostolic Succession by choosing Matthias to be numbered with the 11 apostles and fill the office Judas vacated. At Pentecost it was PETER, standing with the eleven, who gives the first sermon leading to the baptism of about 3,000 souls.
It was PETER who healed the lame beggar in Acts 3, and PETER who addressed the crowds teaching in the Temple in Solomon's Portico. It was PETER who boldly faced the Sanhedrin and spoke against them and displayed his authority in the name of Jesus. It was PETER who told Ananias he was not lying to man but to God immediately after which Ananias died. Three hours later it was PETER who again pronounced God's judgment on Sapphira when she likewise lied to him and therefore lied to the Holy Spirit. In Acts 5 the people even carried out the sick and laid them on cots and mats, that as PETER came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them that they might be healed.
It was "PETER and the apostles", not "Simon and the apostles". It was PETER who went to Samaria to lay hands on the newly baptized that they would receive the Holy Spirit. PETER healed the paralyzed Aeneas. It was PETER who went to Tabitha and raised her from the dead by the name of Jesus. In Acts 10 the Angel sent Cornelius to bring "Simon, who is called PETER", and while PETER was speaking to the Gentiles the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Gentiles (uncircumcised). PETER, without consulting the other Apostles, commanded that the Gentiles be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
At the Jerusalem Council where the apostles and elders were gathered to consider an important issue facing the Church and after there had been much debate - it was PETER that that stood up and ended the debate. PETER declared that "in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe." And with PETER's declaration all the assembly fell silent. PETER ended the debate and the Church listened to PETER and implemented what PETER declared in the name of the Holy Spirit. PETER was rescued from prison by an angel of the Lord who led PETER through the city's iron gate, which opened of its own power.
Reading the first 15 chapters of Acts we see PETER in a powerful role in the Church. Nowhere is any other apostle mentioned doing miracles on par with PETER. PETER speaks for the Holy Spirit, strikes people dead with a word, raises others from the dead, heals the lame and the sick, and the Bible tells us that people would hope to have PETER's shadow fall on them to be healed (not that of the eleven). PETER is clearly seen as something special in the early Church, and I would say shows PETER strengthening his brothers.
---------------------
So now let's look at the often quoted passage of Paul confronting PETER, and see how would your interpretation or understanding of Galatians 2 might be different if the following is how it was written:
In Galatians 2, Paul is highlighting the fact that he even opposed The PROTOS (or Chief) when PETER's actions were contrary to the teachings declared from the Lord and set forth by PETER himself and then by the church in ACTS 11. Paul is rightly calling out PETER because of his actions, but NOT because of his teachings. PETER's teachings were in fact correct. Also, the fact that Paul is making the point that he even confronted PETER is highlighting the fact that there was something special about PETER.Quote:
(Gal 2:7-…) "but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the
uncircumcised, just as PROTOS had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through PROTOS for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles), and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James, PROTOS and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship….
But when PROTOS came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came and drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And with him (PROTOS) the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity. …"
------------------
I think the case that PETER was chosen by Christ to lead the apostles and his Church is undeniable, and the Scriptures bear strong witness to his special role. Cheers!