Peter’s primacy according to the New Testament

So as to establish God’s Kingdom on earth, Christ called upon mankind to follow Him, and among those who did follow Him, He chose twelve, the apostles. According to Mark’s gospel (3,14.16) which says that God "made" twelve, this choice represented a real creation, in view of the creation of a new people of God. The new name of "apostles" meant the creation of new personalities. For one of the twelve, the imposition of a new name had a considerable importance and was reported in a more specific manner: Simon received the name of Peter. With this name Jesus bestowed upon this apostle a primacy that involved a singular power within the Church. We must therefore discover and specify Jesus’ intentions in instituting this primacy.

This new name was given to Simon as an answer to a profession of faith. After posing the question: "Whom do men say that the Son of man is?", Jesus had spoken to His disciples: "Who do you say that I am?" According to Matthew’s testimony Simon had answered: "Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God" (Mt 16,13-16).

So as to understand more precisely the importance of the question and the meaning of the answer, it is necessary to bear in mind the liturgical moment. The date on which this dialogue took place is not indicated precisely but we can determine it. According to the Gospels by Mark (9,2) and Matthew (17,l), the Transfiguration took place "six days later". Now, this seems to be a new accomplishment for Jesus of the festivity of the ‘Tenda’. This festivity was preceded with an interval of five days by the Day of Atonement (Yora Kippur). Hence it was this Day of Atonement that had been chosen by Jesus to ask the question about His identity and obtain a profession of faith from Simon. It was also the date chosen for giving Simon a new name and announcing his destiny to him.

Comments regarding this episode cannot be separated from this liturgical framework. The Day of Atonement was based on offering a sacrifice for the remission of the sins of the people, and among the liturgical rites that the Supreme Priest had to perform in the Holy of Holies there was also the pronouncing out loud of the divine name. According to the testimony provided by Syracide, when the priests and the people heard this name, they knelt in adoration, and with their faces to the ground, blessed that glorious name. When the Supreme Priest came down to bestow upon the children of Israel the benediction of the Almighty, he glorified the divine name "and once again they all prostrated themselves..."(Sir 50,20-21) It appears that during Jesus’ time, throughout the liturgical year, this was the only occasion on which the name Jahvè was pronounced out loud.

In choosing this special day, Jesus wished the divine name to be pronounced in a new perspective in which the liturgy of the Old Alliance would be fulfilled. When Simon proclaimed Him the Son of the Living God, he answered this wish. He pronounced the new divine name, the one that Jesus has widely revealed with His teachings and with His work. Without knowing it, Simon played the role of the Supreme Priest, who on the Day of Atonement proclaimed the name of God; he did so expressing his faith in the Son of God, a Son who is God.

The proclamation was approved by Jesus: "Blessed art thou Simon, son of Jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father, who is in heaven". The living God Simon spoke of is the Father, who Jesus calls "My father", this is the unique revelation, expressed with an absolute use of the verb "to reveal": literally, "God has revealed". This unique revelation can only be that of His Son. The title Messiah, referred to by Mark for Jesus’ answer, is not sufficient for justifying a similar revelation. It is the Son as a Son that the Father has revealed to Simon. This is the absolute revelation, because it is the revelation of the divine mystery in which the Father expresses Himself in His Son.

In His congratulations for the proclamation Jesus calls Simon to a certain solemnity: "Simon, son of Jona". It appears that the Greek name Jona corresponds to the Jewish name Yohanan, translated in the Greek text of the LXX as Jona, Ionia or Onia. This is how the reference to the Supreme Priest of the Ecclesiasticus is told: "Simon son of Onia¹¹ (50,1). This surprising coincidence of names allows us to better understand that the apostle Simon plays the role of the Supreme Priest on the Day of Atonement.

More solemn still is the confirmation that the celestial voice of the Transfiguration brings to Simon’s words: the brief interval of time that separates the Day of Atonement from that of the ‘Tenda’ contributes to manifest the bond between the two declarations. The words of the theophanic proclamation repeat the fundamental object of the profession of faith: "This is my beloved Son..."(Mt 17,5) The Father personally witnesses that He is really He who had revealed to Simon the identity of His Son. He Himself pronounces the divine name of Jesus, beloved Son, as He had made Simon pronounce it.

The date of the Day of Atonement contributes to allowing us to perceive the sense of this new name given to the apostle and the importance of this name. The name Simon had already received a new value due to the proclamation of the divine name, with a reference to the Supreme priest in the book of Syracide (50,l-21). With His authority Jesus gives him another name: "And I tell thee that thou art Peter" (Mt 16,18). This name, Kaipha, is conferred so to express a new role, which is briefly explained: "It is upon this rock that I will build my Church". It is identical to the name of the Supreme Priest in office, Caifa. The combination of these two names cannot be a coincidence; it is even more intentional than "Simon, son of Jona", because in this case it is a name intentionally chosen by Jesus. This evocative choice means that, in the eyes of Jesus, for the future Simon is already the Supreme Priest who within the Church will undertake the role previously attributed to the Jewish Supreme Priest.

One can observe that in Greek there is a difference in gender between Petros and Petra, Peter and the rock, while in Aramaic the word is the same (Keypha). The fact concerning the new name given to Simon is confirmed by the other synoptics, regards to the choice of the twelve (Mk 3,16; Lk 6,14). In John’s Gospel, when they first meet, Jesus says: "You are Simon, the son of Jona; you will be called Cephas (which means Peter"(1,42). The word "kefa" is quoted exactly as that which had been pronounced by Jesus and that in Aramaic had all its significant value.

According to Matthew’s story, Simon, after filling the role of the Supreme Priest by pronouncing the divine name of Jesus, was acknowledged by Jesus as the Supreme Priest, the true "Keypha". The words spoken by Jesus create: He had the power to provide Simon with a new Being by giving him a new name. It is the creative power that belongs to God.

Jesus communicated all power to this new Supreme Priest. After saying: "On this rock I will build my Church", He added: "And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys to the kingdom of heaven: and whatever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever though shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven".

The intention of building the Church on he who is the rock is very clear. Many have also interpreted the words of Christ as if the intention was to build the Church on Peter’s faith. It is true that Simon received his new name following a profession of faith, but when Jesus says: "You are Peter", He spoke directly to the person of Peter and instituted this person as the foundations for His Church, Imposing a new name means creating a new personality. So as to be built the Church needed this personality intentionally created by Christ. It is true that from a natural point of view Simon seemed to be provided with a strong personality, he showed this with his robust and ardent temper, and committed it with his professions of faith. But for a destiny that was larger than natural strength he needed a higher strength that was bestowed upon him by Christ’s creative work.

When Jesus stated, regards to the rock, that the gates of hell would not prevail against it, he alluded to the superior spiritual strength that would permit Peter to resist the attacks of the infernal powers, because he would always be supported by grace in his personal actions.

Because the words Jesus spoke to Peter are extremely important for the life of the Church, their authenticity has been questioned, but these words verify the criteria of authenticity usually admitted, more specifically the criteria of continuity and discontinuity. The continuity can be seen in the undeniable fact of numerous Semitisms that characterise the text and guarantee its primitive origins. The discontinuity appears because through this ancient language a new project for a Church is proposed, radically original, in which Peter must play a role never conceived of before nor announced in the prophetic oracles. The traditional Jewish background could not have provided the idea of such a promise. The project carries the mark of Christ’s genial novelty.

Objections regarding authenticity are based on the fact that of the three synoptics that report the profession of faith on the road to Caesarea Philippo, Matthew is the only one who reproduces these words spoken by Jesus. However he explains an episode that is not ignored by Mark and Luke, the imposition of the name "Peter" to Simon. Now, this fact requires an explanation, and that is what the evangelist wished to pass on to us. It would prove difficult to provide another plausible explanation for this name.

Furthermore, we can observe that Matthew the evangelist has collects from special sources we cannot determine but that seem to be credible, a number of traditions referred to Peter. Hence he is the only one who has preserved for us the episode in which Peter asks Jesus to walk on the waters and finally is reproached: "Why did thou hesitate, man of little faith?" (14, 28-31) This reproach for a lack of faith seems to confirm the historical authenticity of this episode.

The most manifest mark of the authenticity of the words that express Peter’s primacy is that of Christ’s audacity, Christ who did not hesitate in conferring to His apostle a power that still today astonishes those who read the Gospel; a really divine audacity that is imposed in a unique manner in the history of mankind so that it may be transformed to God’s likeness.

The name Keypha conferred to Simon fits in with the framework of the Day of Atonement not only because in involves an allusion to the acting Supreme Priest, but more fundamentally because it is related to the rock for the foundations of the temple. This rock emerged from the ground in the Holy of Holies and held the place of the ark and the propitiatory, which had disappeared since the time of the destruction of the first Temple. This rock had even been considered as the one on which the world had been founded. The Supreme Priest entered the Holy of Holies only once a year, on the Day of Atonement, for the sacrifice of perfumes and the aspersion with the blood of the victims.

The totally new factor was that he who held the position of Supreme Priest was now identified with the rock of foundation. The Jewish liturgy could not envisage such an identification; the Supreme Priest was thereby considered as submitted to strict rules in the implementation of the ritual gestures: his preparation for the Day of Atonement required a week and on the day of the celebration he was closely supervised so that all his liturgical activities were conform to those prescribed and might be effective. He was considered only as an agent, the supreme agent of a ritual institution, the performer of pre-established ceremonies. The fact that Jesus nominated Peter as his Supreme Priest outside all this ritual framework is per se highly significant; it represents priesthood being freed from a sort of liturgical imprisonment. But even more surprising is the fact that the Supreme Priest should become, in this broader perspective, the rock of foundation. It is here that the novelty established by Jesus becomes manifest: the role of the Supreme Priest will be far more important in the Church than in the Jewish religion. The entire building will lean on this person.

The audacity of the declaration becomes even clearer when one considers other words with which Jesus designs Himself as the angular rock (Mk 12,10 par), a rock that according to Isaiah (28,16), was to be the foundation rock for the new Sion (see Rom 9,32; Eph 2,20). Hence the image of the "foundation rock" belongs first of all to Jesus. But Jesus deliberately makes Simon the Church’s foundation rock: the importance of this role cannot be underestimated.

The primordial identification of Jesus with a rock explains how Simon was able to receive such a qualification: in virtue of His divine power Jesus informed Simon about his role as a foundation rock. The Church remains the Church of Christ, "my Church", and it is as the Supreme Priest, the minister of a cult that is not his and for which he is not the master, that Simon is called the foundation rock. He does not replace Jesus, because He remains the unique rock that supports the entire Church, but is destined to visibly represent Him in the earthly creation of the Kingdom.

Due to the fact that Simon, in virtue of Christ’s wishes and the participation in His power, is the foundation rock, the Church cannot exist nor develop without he who has received the supreme priesthood. Wanting to build the Church outside this foundation would mean embarking on the wrong path.

After indicating the role of the foundation rock, Jesus emphasises the sovereign authority he wishes to entrust to Peter: "To you I shall give the keys of the kingdom of heaven". This way of expressing supreme power reminds one of a text by Isaiah: "He who bears the key of David; so that none may shut when he opens; none open when he shuts" (22,22).This text was applied to Jesus in the Apocalypse (3,7). Jesus in fact is He who has the keys to the Kingdom and therefore can give them to Peter, just as He as the first foundation rock can allow the disciple to take part in this quality.

The image of the keys to the Kingdom has perhaps a relation with the essential gesture made by the Supreme Priest on the Day of Atonement: a gesture he alone could make, and only on that day, that of entering the Holy of Holies. So as to characterise this privilege one might say that on this occasion he had the keys to the house of God; he could open what was normally closed so as to obtain divine forgiveness and blessings for the people.

Let us remember how the letter to the Hebrews interpreted Christ’s redeeming sacrifice in the light of this celebrations: "The sanctuary into which Jesus has entered is not one made by human hands, is not some adumbration of the truth, He has entered heaven itself, where He now appears in God’s sight on our behalf" (9,24). Once and for all Jesus has entered the real Holy of Holies with His offering, the Holy of Holies that is the heavenly Kingdom. Hence he has become the master of this Kingdom, He who has the keys and opens the doors too mankind: Jesus was and remains the perfect Supreme Priest, who has implemented all that was shadows and figures in the liturgy of Atonement.

Christ wished Peter to exercise the role of Supreme priest, that he should prolong and reflect on the earth this supreme priestly mission, He promised him the keys, the power to open the gates of the Kingdom, where heavenly life already begins. And it is amazing that He placed no reservations on this power: He did not only provide part of the keys. Therefore he conferred to Peter an integral authority, the real likeness of His own.

This authority is even more clearly emphasised by the words that conclude this promise: "All that you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, all that you loose on earthy will be loosed in heaven". The verbs "to bind" and "to loosen" have been the object of numerous interpretative attempts. From the liturgy of Atonement, which had as its objective the remission of sins, one can conclude that the power to bind and to loosen involves the power to pronounce the forgiveness of sins. However it cannot be limited to this forgiveness: a Jewish liturgical day cannot establish the limitations of a power formulated by Christ.

Rabbinic literature has often been quoted so as to clarify the sense of this "binding-loosening": it involves a doctrinal or disciplinary extent, both for declaring something as forbidden or as allowed, and for pronouncing or removing excommunication. This dual meaning tends to show Peter receiving the power to emanate prohibitions such as pronouncing what is allowed, and establishing the conditions for belonging to the Church.

But on this point too one cannot attribute an exclusive value to the rabbinic sense. It is best to respect the novelty of the institution created by Jesus: no precedent in the Jewish religion could sufficiently indicate its sense or its real dimensions. Since no restrictions are posed to this power to bind and to loosen or to the passing down of the keys, one must admit that Peter has universal and complete power over the Church. Like an administrator who has received from his master every authority for the development of the Kingdom, he has all the necessary faculties for leading the Christian community. Among these faculties there are those for pronouncing the laws for moral behaviour manifesting the divine will over human life and that for forgiving sins.

Exercising this power is not only approved in heaven, it also receives a heavenly effectiveness. This means that Christ links His divine work to Peter’s human work and that He intends to exercise His authority on the Church through His disciple.

The words of Jesus, in attributing the new name that means foundation rock, with the gift of the keys to the Kingdom and the supreme power to bind and to loosen, were only spoken to Simon who has become Peter. They were not addressed or applied to the twelve apostles. The distinction is extremely clear. Christ gave Peter an exclusive primacy.

On the other hand the promise made to Peter does not annul the other words spoken by Jesus: it must be understood in harmony with the statement that attribute some powers to the Twelve, powers that are very important for the life of the Church. We cannot underestimate, for example, the words pronounced during the Last Supper: "As my Father has allotted a Kingdom to me, I allot a place to you" (Lk 22,29). Jesus gives his apostles power in the direction of the Kingdom, which does not contradict at all the power personally given to Peter and that must be acknowledged and respected. The same applies to the other powers: power to teach the doctrine in all nations, the power to forgive sins, the power to celebrate the Eucharist, to baptise. The apostles received these powers and were associated to the power conferred to Peter; but Peter occupies a unique position as the foundation rock and the holder of the supreme and universal power.

In Jesus’ intentions this unique position did not exclude but included the possibility of successors. Instituting the primacy, Christ did not only wish it to last simply for the relatively brief duration of Peter’s life. He announced the imminent coming of His Kingdom, He has also made His disciples understand that this Kingdom was called up to a development that would take a considerable amount of time, because the end of the world could not take place before the evangelisation of all people (Mt 24,14; see At 1,7-8). He could not therefore make do with a brief expectation of the future, only taking care of structuring the power of His Church for the duration of His disciples’ lives.

When He instituted a primacy, Christ did not only think of Peter but also of his numerous successors. He wished to establish a principle for the organisation of the authority that would remain valid for all the duration of His Church. This principle is definite, even though the real manner for the primacy’s implementation may undergo an evolution due to historical conditions.

The primacy could not be contested in the name of a democratic mentality. Democracy is a regime of authority that works in political societies, but the Church is a unique non-political society. The Church was not founded according to a human model of society, but in virtue of a divine plan that established its fundamental structures. Whatever the structures adopted for other societies may be the Church maintains its own structures, which do not derive from political concepts. Christians welcome with faith the superior knowledge that determined the Church’s visible principle of unity.

It is not only a question of knowledge but also of love, because the primacy is a considerable manifestation of divine goodness, a goodness that with a singular power entrusted to a man has shown at the highest levels the value that a human personality can assume when it allows itself to be totally animated by the sovereign power of Christ.

In Luke’s Gospel the primacy attributed to Peter is seen in a new light, which shows the choice made by Christ to ensure the faith of the apostle and provide him with the capacity to confirm his brothers: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has claimed power over you all so he can sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; when after a while thou hast come back to me it is for thee to confirm your brothers".

It is impossible to doubt the authenticity of these words, which are clearly a paradox: they show Peter’s weakness and yet give the apostle the duty of rendering his brothers more stable in their faithfulness to Christ. This duty arises from Christ’s audacity, He does not hesitate in choosing for a mission to help the weaker he who when tried appears the most fragile: this verified the strength contained in the name "Peter", more literally "Rock".

Jesus’ words indicate the objective of reserving a privileged position for Simon: the twelve are tested, and it is only to Simon that the Teacher speaks of the prayer said in his favour. Other too will benefit from this prayer, but because confirmed by Peter.

The statement, made during the Last Supper, alludes to the crisis Simon will confront at the time of his denial. Its meaning is even broader, because the announcement of the test is made in general indefinite terms, as is the mission to confirm the brothers. The crisis which was in fact to accompany the Passion is the image and the beginning of the trial that the Church was to suffer as it grew: Jesus’ promise is formulated for this future.

The mission to confirm his brothers entrusted to Peter cannot remain limited to a certain period of time; it is valid for the duration of the Church. This mission is compatible with the name "rock foundation" attributed to the disciple. Peter was entrusted with the task of supporting the other disciples in the faith: a mission with a doctrinal aspect and a commitment to an unfailing testimony of adhesion to this faith in Christ, with a grace that allows him to overcome all weakness.

The dialogue between Jesus and Peter on the shores of Lake Tiberias, after the resurrection, shows us the disciple’s investiture in his pastoral duty (John 21, 15-17). The words pronounced on the route to Caesarea Philippi (Mt 16, 18-19) were a promise, while this new dialogue fulfilled it. Jesus told Peter about his mission and the power of the universal Shepherd: "Feed my lambs", "Feed my flock". This communication concerning the mission and the power appears to be the fruit of the redeeming work, because it is the work of the Risen Christ.

Jesus calls the apostle by his name with a certain solemnity: "Simon, son of Jona"; is intentionally distinguishes him from the other apostles, because He asks him: "Do you love me more than them?" The question echoes the fact that Simon had said that he Loved Jesus more than all the others, with a perseverance that would have lasted even if all others had deserted him (Mt 26,33; Me 14,29; see John 13,37). It also alludes to the denial, an allusion that becomes more obvious when the question is posed three times. Simon had to acknowledge that with is own strength he had been incapable of showing Jesus the superior love he had promised Him. In spite of this failure, the question refers to this superior form of love that Simon is invited to express, but with other instructions based on the knowledge that Jesus had of him: "Lord, you know all, you know I love you". There exists therefore an appeal for a greater love, an appeal that creates the strength of the answer and preludes the entrusting of the mission.

With the words "Feed my lambs", "Feed my sheep", the mission is formulated in words that indicate clearly an identity with that of Jesus. It is the mission of He who has called Himself "the good shepherd". This identity is confirmed by the fact that Jesus says "my lambs", "my sheep", just as in the promise He had said, "my Church". This means that Christ will exercise his mission as a shepherd of His lambs and His sheep through the task entrusted to Peter. In the same way as Simon who was called Peter because he was destined to assume the role of the foundation rock belonging to Jesus, he also received the quality of universal shepherd that belongs to his Lord.

The assimilation of Peter’s mission with that of Jesus is confirmed by the announcement of his martyrdom: "When thou hast grown old, another shall gird thee and carry thee where thou goest, not of thy own will "(John 21,18 ). The way this martyrdom was announced shows that Peter’s entire life was now led by Jesus: when he was young, Simon dressed himself, hence he freely chose his own activities, but now Jesus will lead him along a path that will end with torment. His preaching also applies to Peter: "The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep" (John 10,11). That which had formed the novelty in the shepherd’s mission, as defined by Jesus, is fulfilled in the destiny of he who has received the task of the universal shepherd. The attribution of the supreme priesthood to Peter involves his total commitment in the sacrifice.

The tale of Peter’s investiture as shepherd of the Church emphasises the fundamental truth of the primacy that has been entrusted: the priestly power was not conferred because of the apostle’s merits or personal qualities, but because of a sovereign plan of love, capable of compensating the human frailness of he who has been chosen and of communicating to him the steadfastness of the foundation rock.