Examining the Biblical Basis for the Papacy: Was Peter the First Pope?

Fifty-eight million American Roman Catholics refer to him as “Holy Father” in violation of Matthew 23:9. He is honored as the head of the church on earth
even though Christ possesses all authority in heaven and on earth and is the exclusive head of the church (Mt. 28:18; Col. 1:18).

Devotees of the Catholic religion assert their pope is the successor of “Saint Peter,” and contend his authority is based on the fact that the church was founded upon Peter. World leaders drool at his feet. The United States has an ambassador (supported with taxes) to the Vatican, the pope’s little “state” of 108 acres.

The doctrine of the primacy of Peter and the papal authority supposedly derived from the Lord’s apostle is the very foundation of Roman Catholicism. However, the system is barren of any semblance of biblical support.

In this article, we will briefly reflect on two ideas: First, is the New Testament information regarding Peter consistent with the image of the pope? Second, do the Scriptures teach that the church of Jesus Christ was founded on the apostle Peter?

Was Peter the First Pope?

The biblical description of the apostle Peter, compared to that of the Roman pontiff, is a contrast of daylight with darkness. Consider the following:

Celibacy

The Roman Church considers celibacy a holier status than matrimony. This is why the pope and many church officials cannot marry.

Clearly, though, Peter was a married man.

Matthew records an instance where the Lord healed the apostle’s mother-in-law (Mt. 8:14). And in a defense of his apostleship, Paul once said that he had as much right to have a wife as did Cephas (i.e., Peter; 1 Cor. 9:5).

Additionally, Peter was an elder (1 Pet. 5:1), which means that he was also a husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2).

Peter Refused Human Adulation

A survey of the news coverage of the pope’s activities revealed how very desirous he is of human adulation. People bow before him, and he extends his hand for kisses. Even images of the pope are kissed and adored.

By way of vivid contrast, when the centurion, Cornelius, fell at Peter’s feet to worship, but the apostle rebuked him: “Stand up; I myself also am a man” (Acts 10:26). Peter not only refused inordinate adoration, but he sinned by hypocritically refusing to fellowship Gentiles. In doing so, he was openly rebuked to his face by Paul (Gal. 2:11ff).

Peter, Pope in Rome?

There is much information about Peter’s travels as his apostolic activity took him from place to place. And yet, not one line in the New Testament suggests that he was ever in the city of Rome, much less exercising the authority of the church in that community.

Perhaps more than twenty years after the church was established in Rome, Paul penned an epistle to the saints (ca. A.D. 56). In that letter, he sent personal greetings to and mentioned more than twenty people (Rom. 16). Interestingly, he never once referred to the “Holy Father,” who was supposedly occupying the papal chair in that city. A strange circumstance indeed if the claims of Catholicism are true.

Moreover, toward the end of his ministry, Paul spent two years under house arrest in Rome. How odd that the divine record (Acts 28) does not mention any association with the “pope.” This is especially significant in light of the fact that inspiration mentions a brief, fifteen-day trip that Paul made to Jerusalem during which he saw Peter (Gal. 1:18). Yet, two years in the same city with the “pontiff” and not a word about it!

Peter, Not the Pope in Jerusalem

About twenty years after the establishment of the church, a controversy arose regarding circumcision. Would Gentiles be obligated to receive this ordinance in conjunction with their acceptance of Christianity?

A council was convened in Jerusalem to discuss the matter. Had Peter been pope, surely he would have presided over this affair, but he did not. James, an elder in the Jerusalem church, was the leading figure. Peter was merely a testifying witness (Acts 15).

There is simply no evidence that Peter was ever recognized as a pope. In fact, the term “pope” is not even in the New Testament!

Was the Church Built on Peter?

Catholicism alleges that Matthew 16:18 teaches that the church was built on Peter. Jesus said: “I say unto you, that you are Peter petros, and upon this rock petra I will build my church.”

The relationship between the name Peter and the term “rock” forms the basis of the Catholic argument. However, the Lord took deliberate pains to draw a clear contrast between Peter and the rock to which he alluded.

Note these very important points:

• The word for Peter is Petros, a masculine gender noun. The word translated as “rock” is petra, a feminine form. The change in grammatical form is not incidental.
• The word Petros suggests a small rock, whereas petra indicates a boulder. The contrast is significant.
• Jesus used the second person, su (you), when addressing Peter, but switched to the third person, taute (this), when referring to the rock.

In this narrative, the Lord employs the symbolism of building construction to convey his point. Within the illustration, Christ is the builder, the church is the edifice, and Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, serves as the foundational truth on which the house of God is meant to be erected.

Then, hinting at Peter’s privilege of proclaiming the gospel—first to the Jews (Acts 2) and then to the Gentiles (Acts 10)—the Lord suggested that the apostle would be granted the keys, that is the authority to open the kingdom for others to enter (cf. Rev. 1:18).

Peter cannot occupy the roles of both foundation and door-opener in the same illustration without violating the rules of symbolism.

The church of Jesus Christ was not founded on Peter. Catholicism is a corruption of the primitive Christian system. It is a manifestation of that great departure from the faith of which Paul warned (see 2 Thes. 2:1ff; 1 Tim. 4:1ff).