Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church

INTRODUCTION

St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome

There is little in the history of the Church that has been more heatedly contested than the primacy of Peter and the See of Rome. History is replete with examples of authority spurned, and the history of the Church is no different. As we proceed with this overview of history, we will allow the Scriptures, the voice of the apostles, and the testimony of the early centuries of the Christian community to speak for themselves. In many quarters, over the last few centuries, the din of opposition and uninformed dissent has drowned out the voices of these ancient witnesses. Novel ideas, like a voracious flood, have tried to erode the foundations and the clear historical precedents provided by the Holy Spirit’s work in the primitive Church.

History has a clear and distinct voice, but it does not force itself upon us uninvited. History is prudent and waits quietly to be discovered. Conversely, the ingenious inventions of recent theologians and innovators are loud and demanding, bursting upon our ears and minds, our lives and hearts, demanding our immediate attention and loyalties. The riches of history fall quietly aside as the prattling innovators blast their trumpets and loudly parade their followers through new streets, trampling the knowledge of the ages under their cumulative feet.

Here we will allow the voices of the past to speak again—for themselves. And what the reader will find is that the utterances of the past still resound with one voice, with clarity and force. To study those who have gone before us, following in the footsteps of the Lord Jesus, his apostles, and our Fathers in the faith is to lose interest in much of the clamor of modern notions. We find these theological innovations and ecclesiastical groups poorly devised, if not disingenuous. This is what John Henry Newman, a Protestant clergyman at the time, found as he studied the primitive Church. He concluded: To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant.¹ As the Protestant churches continue to fragment and lose the fervor and orthodoxy of their past reform efforts, many Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are looking to the past to hear what the early Fathers have to say today. They are beginning to listen to the unobtrusive voice of the early Church, and they are finding it is quite different from what they have been taught. Reading the writings of the early Church allows us to tap into the very heartbeat of the apostolic teaching and tradition of the primitive Church—the very Church bequeathed to us by the apostles.

Sometimes silence is more eloquent than words. This is especially true in Church history. We hear so much about what the Fathers say and so little about what they do not say. This is revealing and should play a significant role in our research. William Webster has written a book that we will refer to several times in our study. Webster is an ex-Catholic who decided to abandon the Church and cast his lot with the Fundamentalist Protestants. His book is entitled Peter and the Rock and asserts that, as the blurb on the back of the book says, The contemporary Roman Catholic interpretation [of Peter and the rock] had no place in the biblical understanding of the early church doctors. To ascertain whether or not such an assertion is true is one of the main goals of this book. But along with what the Fathers say, we need to hear their silence as well.

While reading Webster’s book, I noticed, along with his selective use of the Fathers in attempting to discredit the Catholic Church’s teaching on the Papacy, that there are no citations revealed in his book in which a Christian, especially a Church Father, explicitly denies the Petrine primacy or the Petrine succession. Webster collects a large number of passages that are supposed to prove that the Fathers oppose Catholic teaching, yet never is there a flat-out denial of the Petrine primacy or the primacy of Rome. This is a silence that speaks volumes! We may find differing interpretations of Peter’s primacy, which is what we should expect, according to John Henry Newman, yet we find no denial of that primacy.

I wrote to William Webster and asked him if he knew of any Church Father who denied the primacy of Peter or of his successors. Mr. Webster’s response was very telling, and I wish he had been forthright about this matter in his book. His return E-mail stated, No father denies that Peter had a primacy or that there is a Petrine succession. The issue is how the fathers interpreted those concepts. They simply did not hold to the Roman Catholic view of later centuries that primacy and succession were ‘exclusively’ related to the bishops of Rome.² What an extraordinary admission; what an extraordinary truth. Many of the Fathers were in theological or disciplinary disagreement with Rome (for example, Cyprian and Irenaeus), yet they never denied Rome’s primacy. They may have debated what that primacy meant, or how it was to work out in the universal Church, but they never denied the primacy. The quickest way to achieve jurisdictional or doctrinal victory is to subvert or disarm the opponent. In this case it would have been as simple as proving from the Bible or from tradition that Peter, and subsequently his successors in Rome, had no primacy, no authority to rule in the Church. Yet, as even Webster freely admits, this refutation never occurred. Irenaeus may challenge the appropriateness of a decision made by Victor, but he never challenges Victor’s authority to make the binding decision. Cyprian may at times disagree with a decree of Stephen’s on baptism, but he never rejects the special place of the Roman See, which would have been the easiest means of winning the debate. The bishop of Rome was unique in assuming the authority and obligation to oversee the Churches. Clement and Ignatius make this clear from the first century and the beginning of the second. If the authority exercised had been illegitimate, or wrongly arrogated, it would have been an act of overzealousness at one end of the spectrum, of tyranny at the other. Yet no one ever stood up and said, No, you have no authority. Who are you to order us, to teach us, to require obedience from us, to excommunicate us? If the jurisdictional primacy of Rome had been a matter of self-aggrandizement, someone would have opposed it as they opposed other innovations and heresies in the Church. The silence is profound.

As doctrines develop, as authority develops, as even a family or society develops, there is discussion relating to authority and its exercise. Amazingly enough, this is also true for the canon of the New Testament, which was not finally collected and codified for almost four hundred years after the death of Christ. Does the fact that there were various interpretations of what the New Testament was, or which books it contained—a discussion, by the way, that raised its head again in the teaching of Martin Luther—in any way prove that somehow the New Testament held by the Protestant is uncertain or in doubt because there were various applications or perceptions of that canon in the early years? The faithful Christian may have believed various things about the canon, but he never denied that the Scriptures held a special place. He may have clung to a different collection of books, yet he always understood that there were apostolic books. In the same way, early Fathers, especially Eastern Fathers, may have defined the primacy of Peter and the supremacy of his successors in nuanced ways, yet they never denied that the primacy or authority was attached to Peter and his See in Rome.

Authority has always been an object of distrust and, very often, defiance. The nation of Israel refused to hear authority: they rejected the authority of the prophets³ and rejected their Messiah sent by the Father.⁴ The apostles themselves were abused and rejected.⁵ Should it surprise us that many in our present day reject and demean the unifying authority God has ordained in his Church? In the primitive Church, as we learn from St. Irenaeus, the greatest theologian of the second century, many groups splintered off from the apostolic Church and assembled in unauthorized meetings.⁶ Rejecting the Church and spurning her shepherd is nothing new to our day.

Christians of many traditions are currently espousing recent Protestant traditions and modern schisms; yet they all claim the early Church as their own—asserting that they are the rightful heirs to the teachings of our Lord, the apostles, and the Fathers of the apostolic Church. Are they? Do they have a legitimate claim to the theology of the early Church? Was the early Church essentially Protestant in her theology and polity, or was she Catholic?

Much of the distinctive character of the Church through the centuries has been based on the teaching concerning Peter and his place within the apostolic company and in the Church. Was he chosen for a special position? Did Jesus separate Peter out from the Twelve? Did Peter have authority over the body of Christ, the one sheepfold? Was the position of bishop carried on by his successors? How did the first generations of Christians relate to Peter? These are questions we will try to answer as we proceed with this study.

Holy Scripture must be interpreted, since it is not laid out simply in the form of a Church manual or textbook. One principle of proper interpretation involves studying a topic or passage within its context, both the immediate context and the context of the whole Bible. If this is neglected or done poorly, a plethora of problems arises. Historical context must also be taken into account.

In studying Peter and the subject of primacy, it is especially important to consider who or what makes up the foundation of the Church. The many facets of the Church are like the multiple surfaces of a diamond glistening in the sunlight. These facets are written about from different angles, and the metaphors used—foundations, builders, stones, and so on—are as varied as the gem’s surfaces. In grammar school we learn not to mix metaphors. Mixing metaphors makes clear communication difficult and can lead to misunderstandings. This confusion of context is especially pronounced in much of the Fundamentalist and Evangelical Protestant understanding of the foundation of the Church. However, even George Salmon, no friend to Catholic teaching (in fact he has proven himself a hero to many opposed to the Catholic Church and wrote The Infallibility of the Church to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church), understood the need to understand properly the metaphors used in Scripture. I provide an extended quotation from Salmon’s book to lay the foundation (pun intended) for understanding the biblical and patristic references to Peter and the foundation of the Church.

It is undoubtedly the doctrine of Scripture that Christ is the only foundation [of the Church]: other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ (1 Cor 3:11). Yet we must remember that the same metaphor may be used to illustrate different truths, and so, according to circumstances, may have different significations. The same Paul who has called Christ the only foundation, tells his Ephesian converts (2:20):—Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone. And in like manner we read (Rev 21:14):—The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb. How is it that there can be no other foundation but Christ, and yet that the Apostles are spoken of as foundations? Plainly because the metaphor is used with different applications. Christ alone is that foundation, from being joined to which the whole building of the Church derives its unity and stability, and gains strength to defy all the assaults of hell. But, in the same manner as any human institution is said to be founded by those men to whom it owes its origin, so we may call those men the foundation of the Church whom God honoured by using them as His instruments in the establishment of it; who were themselves laid as the first living stones in that holy temple, and on whom the other stones of that temple were laid; for it was on their testimony that others received the truth, so that our faith rests on theirs; and (humanly speaking) it is because they believed that we believe. So, again, in like manner, we are forbidden to call anyone on earth our Father, for one is our Father which is in heaven. And yet, in another sense, Paul did not scruple to call himself the spiritual father of those whom he had begotten in the Gospel. You see, then, that the fact that Christ is called the rock, and that on Him the Church is built, is no hindrance to Peter’s also being, in a different sense, called rock, and being said to be the foundation of the Church; so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some, in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone.⁷

Our current study comprises four interrelated topics. The first two sections examine the life and ministry of the Apostle Peter from biblical and historical sources. The last two sections examine the continuing authority of Peter through the centuries, carried on through apostolic succession and the primacy of Rome. We divide the study in this way:

1. The Life and Ministry of Peter

    A. Biblical study: Peter the man, the apostle, the rock: What is his place in the teachings of Jesus and in the New Testament?

    B. Historical study: Did Peter travel to Rome, oversee the Church as bishop, and die a martyr’s death in the city of Rome?

2 . The Primacy of Peter in the Early Church

    A. Earliest document study: The primacy of Rome in the earliest non-canonical writings of the Church, authored by Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch.

    B. Early Church study: Peter and the primacy of Rome taught and practiced throughout the first five centuries.

Certainly, it is not possible to compile every passage from the Fathers that pertains to the study of Peter and the primacy. This is true, first of all, because such passages are too abundant and, secondly, because many times the primacy is not demonstrated by written teachings per se, but by the actions of the Fathers in particular historical situations. Some Fathers write of the Petrine primacy and later change their stance as they move away from orthodoxy or from a literal understanding of Scripture or when they enter into a personal conflict with the bishop of Rome. Lately, several books have come out that are hostile to the Catholic Church’s teaching on papal primacy (we will discuss these books in the course of our study). A perusal of these books shows that their inability to deal fairly with the issue stems from their tendency to proof-text, by which they point out things that seem to support their contentions and ignore everything that does not.

Another reason these opponents find it difficult to comprehend the Papacy is a perspective, inherited from the Protestant Reformation, that is essentially anti-sacramental, anti-mediational, and anti-incarnational. God’s economy, however, always involves mediation. The people of God, for example, stepped back and demanded that God not speak to them directly, for they were afraid and stood at a distance. Then they said to Moses, You speak to us, and we will hear; but let not God speak to us, lest we die (Ex 20:19). Take another example—Paul. God could very well have saved him directly, but instead the great Paul was sent to the lowly Ananias for baptism and instructions. Paul later went to Peter for approval and to make sure he was not running in vain, even though he had received revelations and had even been taken up to the third heaven (2 Cor 12:2). No Christian baptizes himself; this is done though the mediating agency of another person. Without an understanding of how God works through mediation, it is difficult to understand the fullness of the faith.⁸

It would take volumes to deal thoroughly with every biblical passage, every Father’s writings, and every argument against the Papacy. However, we will provide ample material to establish the firm foundation of Catholic teaching and to refute the opposition. In the process we will attempt to be fair with the material, analyzing not only the Catholic position but the interpretation espoused by the opposition.

Much can be said about each of these topics and detailed accounts can be read from other sources listed in the bibliography. In our journey through the Scriptures and the primitive Church, we will consult our first brethren in Christ. We will conclude by looking at the current teaching of the Catholic Church as well as the widespread opposition.

Now let us journey back in time to the New Testament period and the generations that followed in the footsteps and the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

PART ONE

THE APOSTLE PETER

BIBLICAL STUDY

Peter the Man, the Apostle, and the Rock

Why should we consider someone so impulsive, outspoken, and unstable as Peter to be capable of leading the band of apostles in founding and governing the Church, the Household of God? Because he is respected and loved by Jesus, being the first among the closest associates of Jesus. Jesus often separated out Peter, James, and John for intimate times of prayer and special instruction. Jesus also specifically chose Peter to be the leader and spokesman for the apostles and the primitive Christian community.

Every list of the twelve apostles in the New Testament has Peter prominently placed at the top of the list, and Judas is listed last.¹ Peter was the first of three special disciples whom Jesus included in his inner circle.² Peter is repeatedly mentioned by name when the others are referred to simply as disciples or the eleven.³ He always stands out as the leader, the spokesman, and the chosen first among equals. The names Peter, Simon, or Cephas are used 191 times in the New Testament. Except for Christ himself, no other person receives nearly as much attention as Simon Peter does through biblical references.⁴ Before Jesus called this fisherman and renamed him Peter, his name was Simon, son of Jonas. Jesus gave Simon a new, descriptive name, Peter, which means rock in Greek, and from that time forward he was known as Simon Peter. Jesus in Caesarea Philippi also called him Cephas (Aramaic for rock).⁵ As we see from the naming of the twelve sons of Jacob, names were very significant in Jewish society. In the Torah and in Jewish tradition, a name change meant a change in status. Abraham, the father of the Jews who received the covenant sign of circumcision, had his name changed by God from Abram, meaning father, to Abraham, meaning the father of nations (Gen 17:1-5). Now, at the inception of the new covenant, we see Simon’s name changed by Jesus from Simon to Kepha, Peter, signifying a new designation, a new commission, and a new status.

Peter was the son of Jonas⁶ and the brother of Andrew.⁷ It appears from the Gospel record, and from Paul’s writings, that Peter was married and owned his own house just south of the synagogue in Capernaum, on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee. Peter may have lived with his mother-in-law and possibly his wife (Lk 4:38). The first-century stone pavement and the dark rocks of the original synagogue foundation, where Jesus taught as one having authority (Mk 1:21), can still be seen today. Archeologists have discovered that the site of Peter’s home was venerated as early as the first century, and several churches were later built over the site in honor of St. Peter.⁸ We get bits of information from Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 150-215) that provide possible enlightenment about Peter’s family. Clement writes, They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, ‘Remember thou the Lord.’ Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition toward those dearest to them.⁹ Clement also mentions that the apostles Peter and Philip both had children.¹⁰ The Apostle Paul informs us that Peter, along with the other married apostles, perhaps took his wife with him on his apostolic journeys (1 Cor 9:5).

Peter and John were not highly educated; in fact, the rulers of the people and elders watched Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men.¹¹ Peter’s brother Andrew, who was a disciple of John the Baptist at the time, introduced Peter to Jesus.¹² Peter owned fishing boats and a family fishing business in partnership with James and John, the sons of Zebedee.¹³ It was from Peter’s boat that Jesus chose to speak to the multitudes (Lk 5:3). Peter and his brother Andrew, along with James and John, left their everyday life and businesses to follow Jesus as his disciples. What happened to their boats and nets? What happened to their fishing business? We do not know. Maybe the business was carried on by family members, possibly by Zebedee and his hired servants (Mk 1:20). After the Resurrection, Peter and the other disciples were again fishing from a boat in the Sea of Galilee (Jn 21:3), so it is probable that Peter still owned the fishing vessels.

The New Testament is peppered with biographical details about the personality and life of Peter. For three years Peter and the disciples followed Jesus as he crisscrossed the rocky terrain of Israel. Peter walked on the water (Mt 14:28-31) and pulled a coin from a fish’s mouth to pay a tax for himself and Jesus (Mt 17:24-27). Peter was the one who received a revelation from God that enabled him to confess the true identity of Jesus (Mt 16:16), and he saw Jesus transfigured, along with Moses and Elijah, on the mountain, which he mentions later in his second epistle.¹⁴ Peter, along with John, was selected to prepare the Passover meal, which would be transformed into the Eucharist (Lk 22:8). Peter was bold and spoke his mind—sometimes too quickly, not thinking before he did so. He was rebuked by Jesus for his wrong-headed conclusions (Mt 16:23), though Jesus loved his devotion and courage. After pledging loyalty and even martyrdom for Jesus’ sake, Peter reneged and vehemently denied the Lord three times—and then (unlike Judas) repented and wept bitterly because of his betrayal.¹⁵ Another time, he impulsively drew his sword and slashed off Malchus’ ear (Jn 18:10). Even though he was brash and impulsive, however, he had a gentle heart and was extremely sensitive to his sin and shortcomings.¹⁶

There may be too much made of Peter’s impulsiveness. As a successful businessman with a prominent house in the community, Peter must also have had organizational and leadership abilities—to which the event of Pentecost added charisms of faith and leadership, grace building upon nature. He could not have succeeded in business if he had allowed impulse alone to rule him. But he may very well have overestimated his own abilities. He took it on himself to lead wherever he was, speaking often for the other disciples, and even once for Jesus.

Peter was the first man to see Jesus after the Resurrection.¹⁷ Peter was given the special commission to pray for his brethren and strengthen them and was appointed by Jesus to feed and tend his sheep.¹⁸ After Pentecost, Peter took the leading role in the fledgling Church.¹⁹ He preached the first gospel message (Acts 2:14-40), and, with the assistance of the other apostles, he baptized over three thousand people that day.

After exposing their deception, Peter condemned Ananias and Sapphira, who lied to the Holy Spirit and fell dead at the feet of Peter (Acts 5:1-11). Peter changed the course of the young Church by baptizing Cornelius and his household, the first Gentiles to become Christians. Paul came to visit Cephas (Peter) and remained with him fifteen days (Gal 1:18). Later, Paul again came to Jerusalem to submit his gospel to Peter and the leading apostles to make sure he was not running in vain (Gal 2:2). When confusion arose over how the law of circumcision applied to the Gentile converts, Peter made the authoritative doctrinal decision at the first Church council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), to which all those in attendance acquiesced. Peter traveled extensively, preaching the gospel and establishing churches all over the Roman Empire.²⁰ There are many more biographical passages focusing on Peter in the Scriptures, more than we can detail in this short introduction.

How does Peter fit into the whole scheme of things? Did Jesus really treat Peter differently from the others? Did Jesus favor Peter or set him apart? What about the other disciples? Did they recognize Peter as first, in a place of preeminence? John was the disciple Jesus loved, the one who rested his head on Jesus’ breast while at the Passover dinner,²¹ but it was Peter who was given a special place of leadership, the shepherd of the sheep and the one who strengthens his fellow apostles.²² But the single event that most clearly shows Peter’s prominence in the New Testament is recorded in the Gospel of St. Matthew. Jesus commissions Peter, and his words have probably caused more spilled ink over the last five centuries than any other biblical passage.²³

The Gospels, Acts, and the letter to the Galatians give us the most information about the ministry of Peter after the Resurrection. The Acts of the Apostles begins with Peter at the center of activity in Jerusalem; and then, after the Council of Jerusalem, Paul takes center stage in the drama. According to Michael Winter,

After this decision [in Jerusalem regarding the Gentiles] has been reached, the book of the Acts leaves the Jerusalem community and relates in detail the mission to the gentiles. It is natural that attention should henceforth center on St. Paul, but the lesson of the first half of the book is not thereby invalidated. The picture of St. Peter is just the same as that of the gospels. Without any attempt to force the meaning of the text, he is seen in a position of particular authority, and although the precise amplitude of his powers cannot be decided without reference to the gospels he is rightly seen to be the director of the infant church. There is no suggestion here that St. Peter is about to be demoted, and although little more is said about him, no evidence can be found to show that it was the intention of Christ or the infant church that he should relinquish his position of authority.²⁴

Quite the contrary. As we enter the fascinating period of the apostolic Church, we see that the place of Peter, and his martyrdom in Rome, had a universal acceptance among the writings and beliefs of the earliest Christians.

Now we will plunge into the Scriptures to discover passages related to Peter and his primacy in the early Church, a primacy that was passed on in the Church through the office of the bishop of Rome.

The Gospel of John

—event c. A.D. 30

—written by St. John about A.D. 90-100

One of the two who heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, ‘We have found the Messiah’ (which means Christ). He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas’ (which means Peter).²⁵

The Gospel of Matthew

—event c. A.D. 30

—written in the last half of the first century

The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. ²⁶

The Gospel of Luke

—written in the last half of the first century

Now about eight days after these sayings he took with him Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. . . . Now Peter and those who were with him were heavy with sleep.²⁷

An Angel

—recorded in the Gospel of Mark

—event about A.D. 30

—written in the last half of the first century

And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed. And he said to them, ‘Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you.’ ²⁸

The Gospel of Luke

And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them, who said, ‘The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!’ ²⁹

Paul in his First Letter to the Corinthians

—written about A.D. 57

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time. ³⁰

Jesus Christ in The Gospel of Matthew³¹

"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi,³² he asked his disciples, ‘Who do men say that the Son of man is?’ And they said, ‘Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’ He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’³³ And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!³⁴ For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.³⁵ And I tell you, you are Peter,³⁶ and on this rock³⁷ I will build my church,³⁸ and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,³⁹ and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ ⁴⁰ Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ."⁴¹

The Prophet Isaiah ⁴²

"Thus says the Lord God of hosts, ‘Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household,⁴³ and say to him: What have you to do here and whom have you here, that you have hewn here a tomb for yourself, you who hew a tomb on the height, and carve a habitation for yourself in the rock? . . . I will thrust you from your office,⁴⁴ and you will be cast down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him,⁴⁵ and will commit your authority to his hand;⁴⁶ and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.⁴⁷ And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David;⁴⁸ he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.⁴⁹ And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house. And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons."⁵⁰

The Prophet Isaiah

"Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you that seek the Lord; look to the rock from which you were hewn,⁵¹ and to the quarry from which you were digged. Look to Abraham your father, and to Sarah who bore you; for when he was but one I called him, and I blessed him, and made him many."⁵²

Flavius Josephus⁵³

—c. A.D. 37—c. 100

And now the Pharisees joined themselves to her to assist her in the government. . . . But these Pharisees artfully insinuated themselves into her [Alexandra’s] favour by little and little, and became themselves the real administrators of the public affairs: they banished and reduced whom they pleased; they bound and loosed [men] at their pleasure; and, to say all at once, they had the enjoyment of the royal authority.⁵⁴

Jesus Christ to His Twelve Apostles

"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you. . . . If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church,⁵⁵ let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.⁵⁶ Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven."⁵⁷

Jesus Christ as recorded in the Gospel of John

And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.⁵⁸

I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one [perfected in unity], so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.⁵⁹

Jesus Christ in the Gospel of Matthew

—written in the latter half of the first century

These twelve Jesus sent out. . . . He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me.⁶⁰

"Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat;⁶¹ so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.’ " ⁶²

Jesus Christ in the Gospel of Luke

—written in the latter half of the first century

Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you [plural], that he may sift you [plural] like wheat, but I have prayed for you [singular] that your faith may not fail; and when you [singular] have turned again, strengthen your brethren.⁶³

Jesus Christ in the Gospel of John

—speaking to Peter after the Resurrection⁶⁴

 ‘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, ‘Feed my lambs.’ A second time he said to him, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me?’ He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.’ He said to him, ‘Tend my sheep.’ He said to him a 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 everything; you know that I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my sheep.’  ⁶⁵

The Acts of the Apostles

—written in the latter half of the first century

—event c. A.D. 30

"Then [the apostles] returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day’s journey away; and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying. . . . All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, ‘Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. . . . For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘His office let another take.’⁶⁶ So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.’ And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, ‘Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.’ And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles."⁶⁷

The Acts of the Apostles

But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, ‘Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words.’ ⁶⁸

St. Paul to the Galatians

—written in the middle of the first century

I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.⁶⁹

Luke the Physician in the Acts of the Apostles

—chronicling the Council of Jerusalem c. A.D. 49-50

"But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’ . . . The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, ‘Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.’ . . .⁷⁰ And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, ‘Brethren, listen to me.⁷¹ Symeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree.’ . . . [Peter, the apostles, and the elders wrote to the Gentiles, saying], ‘For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.’ "⁷²

Paul to the Galatians

—written in the middle of the first century

"Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,⁷³ lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain. . . . [A]nd when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John,⁷⁴ who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship;⁷⁵ that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised."⁷⁶

Paul to the Galatians

"But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face,⁷⁷ because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing the