Abstract:
This essay critically engages the common Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 as the scriptural foundation for the Papacy. While acknowledging the cultural and political significance of appointing a non-European Pope in today’s world, the piece argues that Jesus’ words to Peter were never intended to establish a singular ecclesiastical office, let alone one headquartered in Rome. Drawing on scriptural intertextuality, Second Temple geography, and early church history, the essay proposes that Jesus’ reference to “this rock” was not about Peter alone but likely alluded to the cosmic battleground of Caesarea Philippi—ancient Bashan. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the “keys” and “binding/loosing” terminology reflect shared apostolic authority and teaching responsibility, not centralized supremacy. By situating Matthew 16 within its theological and geographical context, the piece concludes that the modern office of the Bishop of Rome exceeds the concerns of Jesus and Peter in that passage, while still affirming that God can use the Papacy—especially one led by a competent non-Western Pope—for great good in the present age.

Matthew 16:18-19 ESV
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

One of the key biblical texts used to defend the office of the Bishop of Rome is Matthew 16. I have written fuller exegetical blog entries on this passage elsewhere without referring to the Papacy. I think it is a good time to do so now. Please note that I am tabling this in service of truth and not to malign or offend. I respect several Catholics here and hope they will have much to add to enrich our collective understanding of this matter. In the end, I want to argue that, at best, the office of the Bishop of Rome had to be one of the least concerns of Jesus and Peter in this passage.

Matthew records a unique event the other gospel accounts do not cover with as much theological interest. On one occasion, Jesus took the guys on a 25-mile journey. Going from Galilee to Caesarea Philippi would likely have taken them a whole day. This happened shortly after his cousin, John the Baptizer, was beheaded. Matthew does not tell us what the guys discussed en route. Perhaps they were unusually quiet enough to allow Jesus to mourn. But Jesus soon broke the silence:

Matthew 16:13 ESV
Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”

He is about to take the guys through the three acts of the mind, as I discussed in a recent Logic course video. The disciples threw out the various words on the streets they knew. Some say John the Baptist – apparently, either this intelligence was old, or some folks’ belief in the resurrection of the dead was off the chart. Others say Jeremiah, Elijah, or some other major Jewish prophets. But merely staying at the simple apprehension level wasn’t enough. So, Jesus goes deeper:

Matthew 16:15 ESV
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

In other words, enough of what others are saying. The disciples stuck closer and saw the good, the human, and maybe the ugly. Jesus wanted to know what they were thinking about his identity. Simon Peter famously said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” – a reply so full of theological significance we can’t unpack now. In response, Jesus says:

Matthew 16:17-19 ESV
[17] And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

In Catholic doctrines, Jesus’s words to Peter, “On this rock I will build my church,” are taken as a divine sanction of the Papacy. Furthermore, the passage strongly suggests that Peter was to receive “the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” These are cornerstone theological ideas believed to establish the Papacy, but they are almost certainly misguided for several reasons.

1. Peter’s importance in Jesus’ ministry cannot be overstated. He was among the first disciples to follow Jesus and would preach the first public Christian sermon in Acts 2. Furthermore, while mercifully restoring Peter following his denial, Jesus tasks Peter with feeding his lamb (John 21:15 – 19). But none of these things amounts to Peter’s primacy. Indeed, the primacy idea is antithetical to Jesus’s religious reformation because he instituted a community of co-equal children of God.
2. At no time was Peter “the” head of the church. In Jerusalem, a plurality of co-equal elders led the church, including Peter, John, and James (Jesus’s half-brother). Some of the Apostles might indeed be said to be more privileged than others. But even with this considered, Peter never had a primacy. He was always one of the three “inner circle” Apostles, including John and James, not Jesus’s half-brother (Galatians 2:9).
3. The idea that Jesus uniquely referred to Peter when he said, “On this rock, I will build my church,” has K-legs (rickets). At the time the statement was uttered, no church was yet formed. Before the ascension, the disciples were explicitly told to wait in Jerusalem, not Rome, because the church MUST begin from Jerusalem and then branch out to all the world (Acts 1:8). In other words, if Jesus ever desired the office of a Pope, it would be in Jerusalem because that was where he began the construction project.
4. For about 20 years after the ascension, the believers in Jesus were primarily ethnic Jews and converts to Judaism. It was effectively a Jewish Club. Then the Holy Spirit decided, as it always was meant to be, to expand the membership to Gentiles. Hence, Cornelius and his household became believers in Acts 10. Interestingly, it was Peter who God used on that day. It was a moment for Peter to expand his theology and shed his racism. But he was a quick learner. As soon as he saw the Spirit descend on the Gentiles just as he did on the Jews in Acts 2, Peter got the point: Yahweh has accepted even the Gentiles. Now, we may not point to this as a proof of the fulfillment of Matthew 16:18 – 19 for two reasons. First, this was not the beginning of the building project, as Matthew 16 would seem to suggest. Second, while Peter was used to save a Gentile household, Philip was earlier used to turn an entire region and people in Samaria to Jesus (Acts 8).
5. Strangely – for the Catholic doctrine, that is – when the Gentile church began to form, it was not headquartered in Rome either. God was building his church among the Gentiles, a movement Peter played a key role in, but the base of that church was not in Rome but in Antioch (Acts 11:19 – 26).
6. There is, in fact, no biblical evidence that Peter ever did ministry in or visited Rome, even though some later church documents would make this suggestion. Paul was the Apostle who actively did much ministry work in Rome and even succeeded in converting members of the Imperial household (Philippians 4:22).
7. As I have done at length in blog entries, the Matthew 16 passage has something else entirely in mind. The passage employs much wordplay. Though “Peter” means rock, the very ground on which Jesus and his disciples stood was also a rock. When Jesus said he would build his church on “this rock,” he ABSOLUTELY did not uniquely refer to Peter. Even a later description of the church-building process does not uniquely refer to Peter:

Ephesians 2:19-20 ESV
[19] So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [20] built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

Here, Paul says to Gentiles that they are members of God’s household “built on the foundation of the APOSTLES AND PROPHETS,” not Peter. This idea is directly connected to the passage of Matthew 16, but not in the way Catholic doctrines would have us believe.

The “rock” on which Jesus would build his church is the ground on which he stood in the region known as Bashan in the Old Testament (Joshua 13:30). However, Peter would play significant roles in the process, as already mentioned en passant. Bashan was a fundamental idea in Old Testament theology because it was the entry point of the corrupting “sons of God” of Genesis 6. Psalm 68 says God will one day settle the old scores with Bashan:

Psalm 68:1, 14-15, 18 ESV
[1] God shall arise, his enemies shall be scattered; and those who hate him shall flee before him!
[14] When the Almighty scatters kings there, let snow fall on Zalmon. [15] O mountain of God, mountain of Bashan; O many-peaked mountain, mountain of Bashan!
[18] You ascended on high, leading a host of captives in your train and receiving gifts among men, even among the rebellious, that the Lord God may dwell there.

The Psalm begins with an expectation of a divine battle. We find out the battle is with Bashan – a mountain God wants to conquer. The Psalmist describes God’s anticipated victory over Bashan in ways generals of old did:

“You ascended on high, leading a host of captives in your train and receiving gifts among men, even among the rebellious, that the Lord God may dwell there.”

The attentive student of the Bible would immediately notice that this is the verse Paul alluded to in Ephesians 2:19 – 20 and then quoted in Ephesians 4:

Ephesians 4:7-12 ESV
[7] But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. [8] Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.” [9] (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? [10] He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) [11] And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, [12] to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,

So, the giving of ministry gifts—apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers—is directly related to God’s victory over Bashan. These gifts are necessary for “building up the body of Christ”—the “body of Christ,” of course, refers to the church. So, in no way does Peter uniquely build the church. On the contrary, all the gifts God has granted play different roles in the construction project.

So, we see that the chief ideas often given in support of the office of the Bishop of Rome are based on a misreading. Nevertheless, I think God can use the office of the Pope for good in our time. This is why I am hoping not merely for a Black or Asian Pope. Some of us want a competent Black or Asian Pope. The politics matter immensely.