The Best *Biblical* Defence of the Papacy

@catholiccom Senior Apologist Jimmy Akin joined me to discuss the story of his conversion to Catholicism.

In this clip from that conversation, Jimmy, a veteran apologist for nearly 30 years, gives what he thinks is the best biblical defence of the papacy – something he first noticed when he was investigating Catholicism which is still incredibly compelling and, according to him, the best argument out there.

Watch for this full conversation when it's released in early June or become a Patron now to get full, immediate access!

[HAL-sumz]

PETER as Shepherd and first Pope: Scriptural evidence and the structure of the primitive Church make it absolutely undeniable that Christ chose Peter and that Peter was first among the twelve. Depending on the translation, Peter is mentioned 195 times. The closest is John (the beloved disciple) at just 29 times. The rest even less. Consider:
Jesus entered Peter’s house. (Matthew 8:14)
Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter. (John 1:42)
Jesus gave Peter the keys to the gates of Heaven. (Matthew 16:19)
Jesus declared Peter to the the rock. (Matthew 16:18)
Jesus made Peter shepherd. (John 21:15-17)
Jesus told Peter to strengthen his brothers (Luke 22:32)
Jesus paid the Temple tax only for Himself and Peter. (Matthew 17:24-27)
Jesus preached from Peter's boat. (Luke 5:3)
Jesus told Peter to "Follow me" (John 21:19)
Jesus called only Peter to walk on the water. (Matthew 14:29)
Jesus predicted Peter's three-fold denial. (Matthew 26:34)
Jesus predicted Peter's repentance and three-fold affirmation. (Luke 22:32)
Jesus prophesied only Peter's manner of death. (John 21:18-19)
Jesus taught Peter forgiveness 70 times 7 times. (Matthew 18:21-22)
Jesus spoke only to Peter at Gethsemane. (Mark 14:37)
Peter is always listed first of the Apostles. (Matthew 10:2, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13)
Peter was first to confess Jesus as Messiah. (Matthew 16:18)
Peter alone spoke at the Transfiguration. (Matthew 17:4, Mark 9:5, Luke 9:33)
Peter pointed out the withered fig tree. (Mark 11:21)
Peter entered the tomb first - John deferring to him. (Luke 24:12, John 20:3-4))
Peter decided the manner of replacing Judas. (Acts 1:15-26)
Peter spoke for the eleven at the Pentecost. (Acts 2:14-36)
Peter was released from prison by the Angel. (Acts 12:6-11)
Peter spoke for the eleven before the Council. (Acts 4:8-12)
Peter held sin bound to Ananias and Sapphira. (Acts 5:1-10)
Peter's shadow healed. (Acts 5:15)
Peter declared the sin of Simony. (Acts 8:18-23)
Peter revealed the salvation of Gentiles to the Church at Jerusalem. (Acts 11:1-18)
The Angel told Cornelius to call for Peter. (Acts 10:3-8)
The Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles as Peter preached to them. (Acts 10:44-45)
At the empty tomb, the Angel said, "Go tell His disciples, and Peter." (Mark 16:7)
Mary Magdalene ran to tell Peter and the beloved disciple. (John 20:2)
The vision of all foods being clean was given only to Peter. (Acts 10:9-16)
Peter's words silence the first council in Jerusalem. (Acts 15:7-12)
Paul went to Peter to affirm that his Gospel was not in vain. (Galatians 1:18)
Peter was given the revelation of the end of the world. (2 Peter 3:10-11)
Peter taught that Paul’s words were easily twisted. (2 Peter 3:16)
Peter taught that baptism now saves you (1 Peter 3:21)
And many other references. One may deny that Peter was primary, but it takes an amazing ignorance or denial of scripture and history to do so.

[Doug]

I see protestants using their never ending different interpretation of what each word means, but I do not see them claiming to have Peter, or his successors, or the keys. Also, since they deny infallibility, why should anyone pay attention to what they say since their interpretation is just one of many

[randycarson]

*PETRA & PETROS: MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING*
_Why the endless debate over Mt __16:18__ doesn't really matter._

Point #1: REGARDLESS of whether Peter is a large rock or a small pebble, if Jesus can feed 5, 000 people with a few fish, He can build a Church on a grain of sand if He wants to. And He did.

Point #2: REGARDLESS of how Matthew 16:18 is interpreted, the haymaker is the very next verse. In Mt 16:19 Jesus says, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

In this passage Jesus is quoting Is 22:20-22 in which God took the key of the office of Royal Steward from Shebnah and gave it to Eliakim. The typological parallels are stunningly obvious and undeniable.

[quietwyatt]

As a related matter, as Catholics we need to remember that popes are people too. To my mind, the many issues some of us are having with the current pope have much to do with the simple fact that Pope Francis is the first pope from outside Europe. He comes from South America, a region where Catholicism has a much different perspective than we’ve gotten used to.

[melvingeorge]

This channel should get a million subscriber

[Romans.]

If Peter was the rock that the church was to be built upon, would it not be more accurate for Jesus to say “ Thou art Peter and upon YOU I will build my church. But Jesus said “ upon THIS rock I will build my church The word THIS rock would seem to refer to something other then Peter.

[shlamallama]

I would like to see Jimmy Akin interact with Suan Sonna's work on the papacy.

[benpetrie]

Growing up Protestant, I commonly heard the Πέτρος/πέτρα argument— that if "Πέτρος" is "ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ", Matthew would have used Πέτρος/πέτρος in both instances. As the argument goes, this rendering better serves, 'You are Peter, and on this rock/stone [which you are] I will build my church.' This argument asserts that Matthew's implementation of the different words indicates he intended to distinguish the meaning of Πέτρος and πέτρᾳ. Consequently, it can read, 'You are Peter [little stone], but it is on this [much greater solid rock - Christ/Peters confession] that I will build my church.'

While this argument fits nicely with the New Testament theme that Christ is πέτρα, the clausal connection Matthew used makes it difficult to hold this interpretation (antithetical parallelism). In v.18, Matthew utilises the conjunction "καί" to join two dependent clauses. Since "καί" is a marker of an additive relation, "ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ..." is adding information to "σὺ εἶ Πέτρος". However, the above rendering 'You are Peter [little stone], but it is on this [much greater solid rock]...’ works better with a marker of contrast. In Greek, ἀλλά is a typical marker of contrast, and Matthew used this conjunction in v.17 to contrast “flesh and blood” with “My Father who is in heaven”. In English, ἀλλά renders "but, " "on the other hand, " "instead, " or "on the contrary." Arguably, Matthew's use of "καί" supports the interpretation that Πέτρος and πέτρᾳ form a relationship of addition (synthetic parallelism) rather than contrast.

[JohnHazell-utup]

That was a lot of words that made me think this is malarkey. Same old verse used. Nothing from the early church fathers or early extra-biblical writings. Not so *Best* after all.

[francissweeney]

It is impossible to defend the history ot the catholic church with the truth. Jesus has already judged tbe catholic church, the great harlot, in Revelation chapter 17. The rock is The Word of God, the only tbing that will endure. Jesus said " Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Go away Akin, your opinions are patently false.They are simply propaganda.

[tessa]

This is great! I love how thorough and analytical Jimmy Akin is!

[melvingeorge]

Was looking for a channel which refuted certainly the argumemts against protestants

[austindearmond]

It is interesting that I haven't ever heard a Protestant put Peter down as they describe what's said in chapter 16. In fact, if you consultant the resource "An Exegetical Summary of Matthew 1-16", which lays out what various commentators say about the passage, no one is listed as doing that. On the wordplay, the resource says, " Is there any clear distinction in Greek between πέτρα ‘rock’ and Πέτρος ‘Peter’? Matthew’s Greek readers would not have perceived any distinction between the two forms [NICNT], and there is no difference in Aramaic between the word kepha ‘rock’ and Kepha used as a name [EBC, NAC, NICNT, NTC, TH, WBC]. Grammatical precision is not relevant in the use of metaphors [BECNT, WBC]. The reason for the difference between πέτρα ‘rock’ and Πέτρος ‘Peter’ is that, in order to be used as a man’s name, the feminine noun πέτρα ‘rock’ must be given a masculine form, which would be Πέτρος [EBC, ICC, NAC, NICNT, NTC, WBC]."


David Abernathy, An Exegetical Summary of Matthew 1–16, Exegetical Summaries (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2013), 575.

[eve]

Christianity isn't about about formality, but that is always Catholics' and Orthodox Christians' first argument against Protestant denominations. The foundation of the Catholic Church is the Nicene Creed, not the Bible.

[NotInOurNameNION]

Gospel Of John Chapter 1. John The Baptist, Andrew, Philip, and Nathaniel all testify to Jesus Christ as Messiah. John & Andrew do this before Peter even meets Jesus, who then calls him Cephas-Peter. Andrew tells his brother Simon-Peter that he has found the Messiah along with few others. So why then should Peter get any special blessing or title? Just one of many points that doesn't align for the catholic stance on this issue.

[rbnmnt]

Biblical defense? I think that's an oxymoron.

[raymalbrough]

Do we not refer to the Church as Holy Mother Church? The feminine rock.

[Justas]

Yet-Peter never claimed to be the chief shepherd-vicar-pope of the entire church.

The apostles never claimed he was the chief shepherd-vicar of the church.

Never claimed for himself as the rock on which the church is founded on. Nor did the apostles.

The office of a papacy (supreme bishop leader, chief shepherd of the entire church) is never mentioned as a church office in any of the offices of the church described in the New Testament. See I Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 2:20-21, 3:11; I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9

[ellisspear]

I like the pipe rack in the background. You know that the "Owner" knows what he is taking about. ;)

[blusheep]

Its probably the best argument I've heard so far and I'd have to think about it a bit more.

My initial impression is this:
1. Petros and Petra: Since there are many possibilities this argument can't be used as a proof text. To many unanswered questions.

2. The comparison that Peter is a rock but the confession, i.e. Jesus is the cliff is not a put down. He wasn't being charitable at all. That was to bad. Peter wouldn't have batted an eye if Jesus said, "Peter you are surely a rock but the church is founded on me who is a mountain." Peter would have said, "duh."

3. The formula he presented began with Peter being called blessed, followed by the "upon this rock" section, followed by the keys section. The argument was made that it would make sense to go positive - negative - positive. That what followed blessed must then be the blessing. But later when he looked at it from the second angle, Jimmy says that the fact that God revealed the confession to Peter is what was the blessing.

Take that into account, you have a different formula. Peter you are blessed because you received the revelation from God. Peter your confession is what my church will be founded upon. In this church you will have the right to bind and loose. So put another way, Peter's blessing. The foundation of the church. Peter's roll in it as a person of authority.