DeoOmnisGloria.com

The Prince of Apostles

We have had numerous comments, both recently and in the past, questioning the position of Peter in the Church. This subject is one of supreme importance in considering the very nature of the Church and how it is to be governed. In fact, one of the most basic divisions between Protestants and Catholics is premised on this subject.

Much Protestant theology is based on the notion that Christianity is primarily an individual experience. That we may have "leaders" so to speak, but that these leaders have no ultimate authority over us that comes directly from God. In other words, the authority of a Protestant minister, bishop, elder, etc. is drawn from the people, not from God. A pastor has authority over me because I choose to submit to him; but if I do not agree with him, I am free to remove myself from under him. In a way, Protestant leaders are more like gurus than actual authorities because their power is derived from the individuals' recognition of the guru's alignment with God. Once that recognition is gone, the guru is no longer a leader.

On the other hand, Catholic theology is based on the vision of Christianity as a collective experience. If Protestantism can be likened to a democratic society, Catholicism can be likened to a family. The bishops, and in particular the successor to Peter, act as a sort of parent. Our parents have ultimate and unquestionable authority. We do not choose them, nor can we choose to abandon them. Their authority is not rooted in our recognition of it, nor can their authority be removed simply by our abandonment of the Church.

At the root of this difference is the understanding of how Christ created the Church. To Protestants, the "Church" is simply an amalgam of all believers under whatever form, as long as they trust in Christ. Their unity as a single body is determined solely by their faith in Christ and does not depend on a visible unity. Unity of authority and/or doctrine is not important, possible, or to some even desirable. Pastors, bishops, etc. are simply an efficient way of organizing congregations, but are not offices holding divine power and authority. Catholics, on the other hand, see that Christ set up a visible body that would be governed by His apostles and their successors. Unity is achieved only by submission to these successors. It is this unity that makes us a single body. And it is only as members of the body that we have true communion with the head, which is Christ. Catholics acknowledge that Peter is the prince of the apostles and that his successor retains that princely position. This acknowledgement is the foundation of our communion with the Catholic Church, which is headed by the successor to Peter. It explains not only the most fundamental divergence from Protestants, but also explains the reason why we cling to the bishop of Rome as opposed to our Orthodox brethren who are also led by the successors of the apostles.

Therefore, I present the following exegetical piece exploring the role of Peter as it is found in Scripture. I have classified the Biblical passages into three different types, each of which points to a unique and primal role that Peter held. The first is circumstantial evidence that, while not containing any doctrinal statements, shows that Peter's leadership was taken for granted by the writers of the New Testament. The second consists of places in the Gospels where Christ called Peter out from the other apostles and gave him a special calling. Third, there is Scriptural evidence of Peter's leadership in the young Church; not just ordinary leadership, but that of an ultimate arbiter. It is my hope that in considering this mountain of Biblical writing placed in a single article, we can get past petty comments that explain away one verse at a time so that we can review what the Bible as a whole has to say about Peter. To that end, let’s refrain from discussing one verse at a time and instead focus any discussion on the overall themes that these Scriptures present.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

The first type of evidence demonstrating the primacy of Peter comes in the form of circumstantial evidence from Scripture. I place it first for two reasons. On the one hand, it demonstrates the fact that Peter's primacy (much like Christ's deity, for instance) was taken for granted by the writers of the New Testament and the early Church. As will be seen in the verses that follow, Peter's primacy is just part of the natural flow of the New Testament; so natural, there was no need to go into any outright discussion of the issue. On the other hand, the circumstantial evidence is just so abundant; it is easy to lose the forest through all of the trees.

First is the order in which the apostles are referenced. There are only four times in the entirety of Scripture that the twelve disciples are listed off. They follow:

Matthew 10:2-4 Jesus summoned His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew R324 the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed Him.

Mark 3:16-19 And He appointed twelve, so that they would be with Him and that He could send them out to preach, and to have authority to cast out the demons. And He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom He gave the name Peter), and James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James (to them He gave the name Boanerges, which means, "Sons of Thunder"); and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Zealot; and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Him.

Luke 6:13-16 And when day came, He called His disciples to Him and chose twelve of them, whom He also named as apostles: Simon, whom He also named Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James and John; and Philip and Bartholomew; and Matthew and Thomas; James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot; Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

Acts 1:13 When they had entered the city, they went up to the upper room where they were staying; that is, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James.

Now, having read each of these four passages in a row, two things should be obvious. Number one, the first person mentioned in every one of these passages is Simon who was called Peter. An amazing coincidence, you think? Then take a look at number two. The last person mentioned in every one of these passages is Judas Iscariot (except for Acts, where he is not listed at all). Think about this for just a moment. Three different writers, writing at three different times and in three different locations, collectively writing the only four listings of the twelve apostles in Scripture, yet each of them place Peter first and Judas last. It doesn't take a genius to know why Judas appears last. It certainly shouldn't take a genius to know why Peter appears first!

Another source of circumstantial evidence are the places in Scripture where only a limited number of specific apostles are mentioned. It should make people pay attention when they realize that in each one of these instances, one of these disciples is Peter. Consider Matthew 17:1 (Peter, James, and John), Mark 5:37 (Peter, James, and John), 9:2 (Peter, James and John), and 14:33 (Peter, James, and John), Luke 8:51 (Peter, John, and James) and 9:28 (Peter, John, and James), and Acts 8:14 (Peter and John). Now the first thing that is obvious is that the these references single out only three different disciples. Notably, the exact same disciples that Paul later refers to as the reputed "pillars" in Galatians 2:9. But the other thing that should be obvious is that even though the positions of John and James are reversed in several passages, Peter is always placed first. That makes eleven different passages where Peter is listed first among the apostles. If you think this is a coincidence, I suggest that you don't go to Vegas. The odds of this sort of thing happening in Poker just ain't that great.

The final stroke of the hammer comes from Bible passages where the disciples are all lumped together. In each of these passages, the disciples are referred to as "the Eleven", "the Twelve", or the "disciples". But, watch what happens:

Mark 16:7 "But go, tell His disciples and Peter, `He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.' "

Acts 2:14 But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: "Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words."

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"

I Corinthians 9:5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

I Corinthians 15:3-5 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

In each of these five verses, Peter is specifically mentioned by name while the others are lumped together. And perhaps more interesting, no other disciple is ever singled out in this manner in the entirety of Scripture. It happens at least five times for Peter, yet not once for anyone else!

Alright, that pretty much sums up the circumstantial evidence, though you're all welcome to add other supporting Scripture. You have 16 different verses, all of them highlighting Peter, without really saying anything substantive about his role. But I will add one thing: Peter is specifically mentioned 191 times in the New Testament. The only person mentioned more than Peter is Jesus Christ Himself. The next most "popular" disciple is John, with only 48 references. In fact, all of the other disciples combined are referenced fewer than 150 times in the whole Bible. Just something to think about.

JESUS CHRIST SPECIFICALLY CALLS PETER

The more direct evidence comes when Jesus puts a special calling on Peter to lead his Church. The first most obvious calling of Peter to a special role appears in Matthew 16:14-19. For those not familiar with it, it states:

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

There are numerous items of significance in this passage. First note that Jesus renames Simon “Peter”. Name changes are extremely significant in Scripture, always demonstrating a new role of pre-eminence. (Consider Abram to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, Jacob to Israel, etc.). In fact, names in and of themselves are extraordinarily significant and are used to explain an aspect about the person. Recall that Abraham means “father of many nations.” Adam means “man”. Eve means “mother of all living”. In each case the names actually describe the person. Here, Peter’s name is changed and the name he is given is “rock”. Christ immediately explains the significance of rock by noting, in the same sentence, that He would build His Church upon the rock.*(see footnote below) This can be tied back to Isaiah 51, which states, " Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness, Who seek the LORD: Look to the rock from which you were hewn And to the quarry from which you were dug. "Look to Abraham your father And to Sarah who gave birth to you in pain; When {he} {was but} one I called him, Then I blessed him and multiplied him." So, for those of you worried that only Christ is the rock, consider that just as Abraham fathered the nation of Israel and was its “rock”, so too Peter was given the blessing of fathering the Church and is its “rock”.

Second, note that Christ, speaking only to Peter, promises to give him the keys to the kingdom of heaven. More than that, He gives him the power to bind things on earth that will be bound in heaven, and vice versa. This is critical. No understanding of this passage can casually deflect the full brunt of its force. Christ is promising to hold in heaven what Peter holds on earth! In thinking about this point, review the prophet who speaks in the exact same way as Christ:

Isaiah 22:15-23 Thus says the Lord GOD of hosts, "Come, go to this steward, To Shebna, who is in charge of the {royal} household, 'What right do you have here, And whom do you have here, That you have hewn a tomb for yourself here, You who hew a tomb on the height, You who carve a resting place for yourself in the rock? 'Behold, the LORD is about to hurl you headlong, O man. And He is about to grasp you firmly {And} roll you tightly like a ball, {To be} {cast} into a vast country; There you will die And there your splendid chariots will be, You shame of your master's house.' "I will depose you from your office, And I will pull you down from your station. "Then it will come about in that day, That I will summon My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, And I will clothe him with your tunic And tie your sash securely about him. I will entrust him with your authority, And he will become a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. "Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder, When he opens no one will shut, When he shuts no one will open. "I will drive him {like} a peg in a firm place, And he will become a throne of glory to his father's house. "

Notice again that the priest is given the key to the kingdom, he becomes a father to the nation, and he has the power of binding and loosing. It is impossible to miss the mirror like quality of this pronouncement. This is no coincidence; Jesus is fulfilling this prophecy in the calling of Peter as the Vicar to His Church.

The second big calling comes during the Last Supper, where Jesus also denotes Peter as a leader among the apostles. In Luke 22:28-32 we read:

"You are those who have stood by Me in My trials; and just as My Father has granted Me a kingdom, I grant you that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers."

Notice first that the apostles are given an indisputable place of preeminence by Christ Himself. No way to undermine their clearly supreme role based on this passage. They will sit on thrones and judge! But then notice that Peter is given an even higher role, the task of strengthening his brothers. This is so odd, because John was the only disciple who did not desert Christ. Yet Christ clearly calls on Peter, the one who denied Him, to be the one who gathers his brethren together and keeps them from being picked off by Satan! The counterintuitive nature of the calling clearly demonstrates its special nature.

The final calling of Peter to head the Church is found in John 21:15-19.

So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Tend My lambs." He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Shepherd My sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Tend My sheep. "Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself and walk wherever you wished; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to go." Now this He said, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, "Follow Me!"

To give some context here, note that Jesus had been eating with the eleven. He starts out this passage by singling out Peter. Then He gives him the task of shepherding the flock. There is an extraordinary amount of significance in this passage unrelated to Peter’s role as pontiff, but I will leave that aside for now. The bottom line is that the pope has always been viewed as the earthly shepherd of Christ’s flock. There is no way around the fact that Christ explicitly gives that role to Peter in this passage.

So there you have it. Three different passages, the first backed by several Old Testament prophesies, all where Jesus is speaking with the apostles, all with Jesus singling Peter out from among them, and all with Jesus indicating that Peter would hold a special office of supremacy. Not once, not twice, but three times. Jesus never did this with any other apostle! Yet He does it three times with Peter. And three different Gospels record these callings. Again, unless you are a believer in theory of evolution style odds, it is easy to see that there is something unique about the role that Christ has for Peter in His Church.

PETER LEADS THE CHURCH

As confirmation of Christ’s calling, there are several places in the Scripture where we can see Peter leading the young Church, acting as that shepherd that Christ called him to be. Each of the passages below represents an example of this leadership. However, there are many more that I have not included. More importantly, the Scriptures do not contain an exhaustive review or even a topical overview of the early Church. Acts is basically a “highlight” reel, and does not even cover the deaths of the apostles. Thus, for every example given in Scripture, there are dozens that exist in fact and sacred tradition.

Matthew 14:23-33 After He had sent the crowds away, He went up on the mountain by Himself to pray; and when it was evening, He was there alone. But the boat was already a long distance from the land, battered by the waves; for the wind was contrary. And in the fourth watch of the night He came to them, walking on the sea. When the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, "It is a ghost!" And they cried out in fear. But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, "Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid." Peter said to Him, "Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water." And He said, "Come!" And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But seeing the wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, "Lord, save me!" Immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and took hold of him, and said to him, "You of little faith, why did you doubt?" When they got into the boat, the wind stopped. And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, "You are certainly God's Son!"

Here, Peter leads the way in trusting Christ. He points his brothers towards Christ and takes the first step. This is really very similar to his confession of faith in Matthew 16. The Gospels clearly reflect that Peter was the apostle that stepped out first. Here that step was a literal one. In Matthew 16 and Acts 10 where Peter receives the revelation that Gentiles may also be accepted into the faith, the step is a figurative doctrinal one. And in many cases, Peter takes the first step only to fall flat on his face. Consider his objection to Christ’s death, his desire to set up tents for Christ, Elijah and Moses, his denial of Christ, and many others. He was certainly far from perfect. But for all his failings, Christ saw fit to bless him with the honor of being the first among the apostles.

Acts 1:15-22 At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said, "Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. "For he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry." (Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) "For it is written in the book of Psalms, `LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE, AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT'; and, `LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.' "Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us-- beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us--one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection."

Here we see Peter making the first recorded proclamation in the Church after the ascension of Christ. It is interesting that his first step relates to apostolic succession. But that aside, it is no coincidence that Peter is the one to make the decision in this event.

Acts 2:14-40 But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: "Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words. "For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel… "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-- this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. "But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power. …"This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. …"Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom you crucified."

Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation!"

This passage in Acts is the first point in Scripture where the Church takes up the mantle of evangelization—spreading the good news. And by now it should not be surprising that it is Peter who leads the way. The first story of conversion, the first ever “Billy Graham Crusade” if you will, is headed up by that prince of apostles.

Acts 15:1-21 Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. . . . When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses." The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. "And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? "But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are." All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, "Brethren, listen to me. "Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. "With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, `AFTER THESE THINGS I will return, AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN, AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS, AND I WILL RESTORE IT, SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD, AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,' SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO. "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

This excerpt from Acts is chalked full of teaching on the centralized authority that exists in the Church. Even the great Paul appeals to the apostles to govern doctrinal disputes. It is so nice to see this apostle to the Gentiles respecting the authority of the apostles to declare doctrine. This in spite of the fact that Paul was in Antioch at the time and had to go all the way to Jerusalem to make his case. I guess he wasn’t part of the “the local congregation has the ultimate decision” crowd.

In any event, note the prominent place that Peter’s speech is given in this excerpt. This is particularly noteworthy when it is considered that James, not Peter, was the bishop of Jerusalem. In the Church today, the pope is actually the bishop of Rome. It would be totally inappropriate for him to travel to Los Angeles, usurp the seat of Cardinal Mahoney (too bad), and take control of that archdiocese. Cardinal Mahoney is no less a bishop than John Paul II. However, Cardinal Mahoney is expected to look to John Paul II as the successor to Peter, prince of the bishops, first among equals, strengthener of his brethren, shepherd to the universal flock, and head of the Church on earth. That is precisely what James does here with Peter. Peter is given a place of honor and the opportunity to unilaterally take the floor and express God’s will. Then James, the local bishop, makes the decision in line with the comments of his elder brother (if you will), even making explicit reference to those comments. Again, Peter leads and his brethren move forward in union with him.

II Pet 3:14-16 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

I find this verse fascinating because it says something about how Peter was perceived. Whereas Paul acknowledged that Peter was a reputed pillar of the Church and presented himself to Peter upon his conversion, Paul never felt it necessary to say, “Peter really knows what he is talking about.” This was totally unnecessary; as Paul’s writings demonstrate, everyone recognized Peter as a pillar of the Church. On the other hand, Peter, in this passage, extends his approval to Paul’s works, thereby lending them credibility as the inspired work of God. It is the foreman who approves the workers, not vice versa; clearly Peter was the foreman.

This is the end of my exegesis. Almost thirty different passages of Scripture showing that Peter was the first pope, the prince of the apostles, the rock of the Church, etc. and so forth, a position given to him by Christ Himself, acknowledged by the entirety of the early Church, and practiced by Peter. It is the successor to Peter that we follow today. I hope that the weight and message of these passages will convince at least a few that the Church has got at least this issue correct. If not, at least it will be food for thought. God bless you all.

In Christ,
Dave

*Attempts to distinguish the terms used in Matthew 16:18 (in Greek "petra" and "petros") are unavailing and have been rejected by most Protestant scholars. The line typically goes that petros means pebble and petra means boulder. Thus, Christ used petros (pebble) to refer to Peter and petra (boulder) was referring to Christ. Ignoring the totally illogical grammar of the sentence with that construction and the utter pointlessness of renaming Simon (what the heck does pebble signify?) there are four irrefutable reasons why this construction is not even possible. First, Matthew originally wrote in Aramaic and the actual word used was kepha or cephas. The original passage was thus rendered "you are kepha and upon this kepha I will build my Church". Aramaic had no distinction for pebble or boulder. Second, in Koine Greek (the original Greek version of Matthew), petra and petros do not have the distinction that they have in classical Greek. Third, Koine Greek did use these two different words, but only for gender purposes. Petra is feminine and petros is masculine. The object of a rock was a feminine noun. This is hard for English speakers to understand, but for those who speak Spanish, French, Italian, etc. the concept should not be difficult. When the term was used to name a male, it had to be converted to the masculine. Thus, Simon was given the name Petros, but in referring to his role as the "rock", the word is rendered petra. Fourth and finally, Koine Greek did have a word for pebble or small stone, which was "lithos". This word is found throughout the Greek translations of Matthew's gospel as well as the other gospels. If he wanted to make the distinction claimed by Protestants, he would have said "you are lithos and upon this petra I will build by Church." I certainly hope I do not read any rehashing of the "Christ was really talking about Himself argument." Seriously, let’s be intelligent here! As to the frequent, "Christ was talking about Peter's confession of faith" argument, we can agree. But that in no way diminishes the fact that Christ is also talking about Simon personally... else, why change his name? Should we all be called Peter?