Was Peter a Pope?
By Timothy Glover
Matthew 16:18 records the promise of Jesus to build his church. Jesus says, " You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." It is taught by some that Peter was the rock or foundation upon which the church was built. It is often true that the very passage used as a proof-text for an argument is the same passage that destroys the argument. Peter’s name means "stone". This stone usually refers to a stone of such size that one may throw. The word translated "rock" usually means "a massive stone" such as a cliff or ledge of rock. Jesus is making a play on words. You are a small stone but the church is to be built upon a huge cliff. The language itself suggests this when he says, you are PETROS (masculine) but upon THIS Petra (feminine) I will build my church.The church is to be built upon the foundation of Jesus being "the Christ, the Son of the living God." Peter understood this because in 1 Pet. 2:6-7 he quotes Isaiah and applies it to Jesus. Then, in verse 8 he refers to Christ as the rock (petra).
The fact that Peter was a very prominent figure does not mean he was preeminent. The authority to bind and loose is given to all the apostles, not just Peter (Mt. 18:18; 19:28). We know that Peter was very impulsive and had an aggressive style. He was willing to fight for his Lord when the soldiers came to take Jesus. He was the bold one who said, Though all forsake you, I will never forsake you." Yet, he was also the very one who denied three times that he ever knew Jesus. Later, he was given the opportunity to confess the same number of times, Yea, Lord, you know that I love you His aggressiveness qualified him as an excellent leader and spokesman. No wonder he was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt.16:19), signifying that he was given the authority to open. Yet, when we find him opening the doors to the kingdom, he is " standing up with the eleven" in Acts 2:14. While it is true that he was more prominent, the same
power was given to all the apostles.
Others did not honor him as pre-eminent. Matthew 20 finds the mother of James and John asking that her sons be given positions of honor and on the night of Jesus’ betrayal, the apostles were arguing about who would be the greatest in the kingdom. Why would there be any question if Peter was already declared to be the greatest (Luke 22:24-30)? Why didn’t the Lord settle the matter instead of explaining that no one is to exercise authority over others (Mat. 23:9-10)?
Peter appears in Acts 15 as just one of the apostles. He speaks first, then Barnabas and Paul, who was not behind any of the apostles (2 Cor. 11:5; 12:2), spoke. Finally, James summarizes Peter and Paul’s work among the Gentiles and added scripture to support their report. He then says, " Therefore, I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God..." This decision was agreed upon by the apostles and elders with the whole church (v. 22). James offered the solution not Peter. Perhaps he was the first pope. Who can believe it?
Another proof-text offered in support of Peter being the first pope is John 21:15-17 where Jesus tells Peter to feed his sheep. Paul tell the elders of Ephesus to do that, too. Does that make them Popes, too? In Peters first epistle, he identifies himself as a fellow-elder and exhorts elders to feed or pastor the flock (1 Peter 5:1-4).
Peter was just a man. He was an apostle of Jesus Christ and a prominent leader of men. Notice when he came to the house of Cornelius, Cornelius fell down at his feet and worshiped him. Peter took him up and said, Stand up, I myself am also a man. Peter does not fit the mold of the Popes today. And he never claims such supremacy. In Gal. 2:11-14, Peter acted as a hypocrite and Paul withstood him to the face because he stood condemned or blamed. Yet, who would dare rebuke the Pope of Rome today?
If one can show that Peter was the true vicar of Christ on earth and the head of the church as the council of Florence decreed in 1439, one would still need to prove that his appointment was passed on to others. Roman Catholicism has a most difficult task to prove he was the first pope. Then, they have an even harder task to prove apostolic succession. It is difficult to show the chain before Boniface III. The early historians differ in their lists before Boniface III, who was given the title "universal pope". Before him, Pelgius II and Gregory the Great repudiated the title and position. Still, they are listed in the unbroken chain of succession.
If true, church tradition takes precedence over scripture. It isn’t important to appeal to scripture for the doctrine of purgatory, sprinkling, incense, candles, images, holy water, prayers to Mary, etc. They clearly would not find it taught. The truth is that six hundred years after Peter, a universal pope is ordained. But, to give him power, he must then claim to have been in this long chain of command back to Peter. Like the Pharisees, they " worship him in vain, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Mat. 15:7-9). We have tried the spirits and found them not of God (1 John 4:1; cf. Gal. 1:6-9, 2 Tim. 3:16-17).
