WAS PETER THE FIRST POPE?
by Thomas A. Thornhill Jr.

       This past week there was extensive coverage of the death and burial of John Paul II, leader of the Roman Catholic Church.  In coverage, on more than one occasion, I heard mention of Peter being the first pope and John Paul was his successor.  In fact, their "church history" makes him the 263rd successor of Peter.  We have heard much about how he was a good man and how much he did to unite various world religions and faiths (which he did – but how? Compromise!)  Hearing this and many other things, I am greatly concerned and saddened because I am convinced the Catholic Church is the ultimate end of apostasy and its head, the pope, is completely without Biblical authority and, in fact, DIRECTLY condemned in the Bible.   Yet not only is he embraced by Catholics (which is understandable) but he has even been embraced by those who believe that Catholicism is wrong, or at least that it is not the only true religion.

       Because we have heard so much about this, I now want to address the subject of the papacy and answer the question FROM THE BIBLE - was Peter the first pope?

       In this lesson, it gives me no pleasure to expose that which I believe needs to be exposed.  This is not presented as a personal vendetta or with an attitude of superiority.  It is simply submitted with the hopes that you will open your Bibles and determine whether or not the concept of a pope is acceptable to God or not.  As you will see, God’s word condemns the papacy and my hope in presenting this lesson is that we will be better equipped to address this as false doctrine and win souls to Christ.  Also, I do not intend to misrepresent anyone – therefore if you hear me say anything that is wrong, please point that out so that I may correct it in the future.

I. The Problem with the Papacy

A. First of all it is a product of apostasy from the real church of Christ we read of in the Bible.

B. Why is the office of pope never mentioned in the Bible?  Jesus named:

a. Apostles - Ephesians 4:11, 1 Corinthians 12:28, Matthew 10:1-4

b. Elders – Philippians 1:1; Acts 11:23, 1 Timothy 3:1-7, etc.

c. Deacons – Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:8-13

d. WHY IS THE OFFICE OF POPE NEVER MENTIONED?

C. Christ is the head of the Church

a. Ephesians 1:22,23 – Christ is head over ALL THINGS to the church;

b. Ephesians 5:22-24 – as husband head of wife, Christ is also head of the church.

c. NOTE also Matthew 28:18 – All authority given to Christ . . .

d. Question - What qualified Jesus to be head of the church?  What qualified Him to be exalted as God exalted Him?  What qualified Him to be our High Priest and advocate? A. IT was His sinless sacrifice – Hebrews 4:15, 1 Peter 2:22, 2 Corinthians 5:21

e. WHERE IS ROOM FOR THE POPE IN THIS?

D. Titles – pope (papa), Vicar of Christ (a Roman Catholic priest who acts for another, higher-ranking clergyman, the pope is "Christ’s representative on earth"), Holy Father, chief pastor (Consider this in light of Hebrews 13:20, John 10:11, 14, etc.), supreme pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West, Prince of the apostles, etc.

Consider what Jesus had to say in Matthew 23:1-12 – NOTE in these verses the warning of Jesus.

E. The worship of a man – while he may not claim to actually be worshipped, but addressed in the place of Christ- the fact is he accepts acts of worship including bowing down in his presence, kissing his ring, the various titles bestowed upon him, etc.  Also this past week, Catholic churches have been having special masses in his honor almost every day.

a. Consider this in light of 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, “Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”

b. Jesus told Satan in Matthew 4:10, “It is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve’.”

c. Note also 1 Timothy 4:1-3 which speaks of an apostasy which included, some “forbidding to marry”, etc.

II. Why Peter Was NOT the First Pope

A. He did NOT fit the mold of a pope (especially a modern pope)

NOTE: While some of these Catholics will say that changes were not made until centuries later concerning marriage, papal infallibility, etc.  In that they speak the truth.  BUT that begs the question - WHY DID YOU CHANGE?  Where is the authority to change what was NOT in God's word!  Think about it!

a. He was married – In Matthew 8:14 Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law, - In 1 Corinthians 9:5 Paul mentions the wife of Peter.

b. No titles were ever given to him – when he referred to himself as an elder he used the term, “fellow elder” – 1 Peter 5:1.

c. He was fallible – making major mistakes, even after Christ's ascension – see Galatians 2:14

B. He was never described as preeminent. 

a. He had no authority over other apostles -

Note Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians 11:5, 12:11

Matthew 19:28 – the twelve would sit on thrones judging the tribes of Israel.  There is NO clear passage that shows ANY apostle to have preeminence over others.  In fact consider what Jesus said to them as they argued about these things – Matthew 18:4 – the greatest in the kingdom of heaven was he who served;

b. He did NOT accept worship – Acts 10:25,26; see Revelation 19:10, 22:8-9 where John was told not to even bow down before the angel sent from the Lord.

C. Some of the arguments made to prove Peter was the first pope include:

a. Matthew 16:18, 19 – because the word Peter is derivative of a stone and Jesus said, “Upon this rock I will build My church” He must have been talking exclusively to Peter.  However, that is not borne out in the context.  For one thing, Jesus used different genders of the Greek word, petra, which means He was NOT speaking of the same thing.  What Jesus spoke of was Peter’s statement, “You are the Christ.” Note also that Jesus then said, “I will build MY church”

b. Another passage referred to is John 21:15-17 where Jesus restores Peter to service. 

i. They say this because Jesus asks, “Do you love me more than these”.  Catholicism believes that here Jesus is challenging Peter to feed not only His sheep, but His shepherds as well.  In other words, they believe Jesus is putting Peter in charge of the other apostles, etc.

ii. But that is NOT taught in the text.  The actual text has reference to restoring Peter after he denied Jesus 3 times.  (Luke 22:54-62).  Remember that after the third time we are told Jesus looked at him and he went out and wept bitterly.  Peter had doubts and needed to be restored.  Even his responses to Jesus showed this doubt.  The text does not say the sheep were the other apostles – so it would apply to anyone following Christ.

iii. As to the expression, “Do you love Me more than these?” the meaning is ambiguous and can mean one of three things – 1)Did Peter love Jesus more than the other apostles did, 2)Did Peter love Jesus more than he loved these other men, 3)Did Peter love Jesus more than these things – his possessions. 

Probably this has reference to the FIRST one.  Recall that before Peter denied Jesus he boasted that he would never do that.  Note Matthew 26:31-35.  Jesus said all would deny Him and Peter answered, “Even if all were made to stumble because of You, I will never be made to stumble” (33) If Jesus has this in mind, he is humbling Peter and asking, “Will you still say that?”  Peter hesitates with his answer.

iv. Also, Elders are given the task of shepherding their flock (the local church) – note again 1 Peter 5:1-4.  NOTE here how Peter calls himself a “fellow-elder”.

v. There is NO evidence in this text that Peter was made the head apostle and first pope here or in any other text.

c. Some mention how Peter is mentioned first in all the lists of the apostles and he was predominant in speeches and actions including choosing Mathias to replace Judas (Acts 1:15-26), his speech is recorded in Acts 2 on Pentecost, he healed a man in Acts 3 and 4, was the first to preach to Gentiles (Acts 10), etc.  While these things are true and DID happen, they still don’t prove he was preeminent over the others.  All this proves is that he was outspoken and a natural leader.  Nowhere does he EVER claim a special place.  In fact as we have already shown, he refused preeminence.

Incidentally, Paul had “credentials” just as impressive as Peter in many of these areas.

There are other passages but they are easily answered and usually the product of twisting what the scripture actually says.

D. An interesting thought to consider is the fact that based upon the office, Paul was more qualified to be the first pope than Peter.  Consider these facts:

a. Paul was not married (1 Corinthians 7).
b. Acts talks about Paul more than about Peter.

c. Paul rebuked Peter (Gal. 2:11-14); Peter never rebuked Paul.

d. Paul cared for all the churches (2 Corinthians 11:28).

e. Paul was not behind any apostle (2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11). Peter never made such a claim for himself.

f. Paul wrote 3/4 of the New Testament books. Peter wrote only 2 little ones.

g. Peter cited Paul's letters as authority (2 Peter 3:15,16), but Paul never cited Peter's letters as authority.

h. Scripture expressly tells us Paul was in Rome, but never says Peter was there.

i. Paul's labors exceeded those of other apostles (2 Corinthians 11:23).

Thus we can see that Peter was not the first Pope, nor is the office of pope one found in God’s word.  History shows that for 5 centuries the church gradually crept further into apostacy in its organization until in the year AD 606, Boniface the 3rd declared himself to be the universal ruler of the church.  It is because of these things that I reject the idea of a pope.  It is a doctrine that will cause many to be lost.  Let us not be caught up in such false systems of belief.