Was Peter the First Pope?

Introduction:

(Matthew 16:18-19)

There are approximately 62 million Roman Catholics in the U.S. and 1.4 billion world-wide.

Last week, with the death of their previous pope, Francis, a new pope was selected, Robert Prevost, whose “pope name” is Leo XIV.

According to Roman Catholic doctrine, this man is the head of the church and the successor of Peter, who they claim to be the first pope.

This lesson is not an exposé of Catholic doctrine, but merely a cursory examination of whether the Bible that Peter was the first pope.

The word “pope” literally means, “papa,” and is one of several titles given to the bishop of Rome.

Other titles given to the pope are: “Supreme Pontiff,” “Vicar of Christ,” “Vicar of the Prince of the Apostles.”

In short, the pope is allegedly the head of the church and a successor of Peter.

I. Weak Arguments Against the Pope

Probably, one of the most frequently used arguments against the pope, and one that might first come to your mind is “Peter couldn’t have been the first pope; he was married, and popes aren’t married.

However, this argument is quite weak.

While it is true that Peter was a married man (Matthew 8:14-15; 1 Corinthians 9:5), it does not follow that this is a proof against Peter being the first pope.

Catholicism claims three sources of equal authority.

Scripture.

Tradition.

The Magisterium.

Celibacy of the priesthood was not imposed until the Lateran Council in A.D. 1139

So, if you raise this argument, a Catholic would merely say that popes didn’t always have to be celibate. It was only after A.D. 1139 that the discipline of celibacy was imposed.

However, the singleness of the pope does present a substantive problem when you remember that one of the qualifications of bishops is that he must be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7).

Scripture says call know man father (Matthew 23:1-12).

This argument struggles on multiple fronts

First, it struggles due to the fact that in the Old and New Testament the term father was used for positions of respect or admiration

Isaiah 22:20-21; 2 Kings 2:12; 2 Kings 6:21

There are examples of the other “prohibited terms being used in other places (James 3:1; 1 Timothy 2:7)

II. How Can We Know that Peter was not the First Pope?

There is no mention of a pope or an office of “pope” given in Scripture, let alone a description of qualifications and duties of this office.

Peter never referred to himself as a pope.

He called himself an apostle (1 Peter 1:1), but not the “Supreme Apostle.”

He called himself a “fellow elder” (1 Peter 5:1) but never referred to himself as the “chief shepherd” or “vicar of Christ.”

The other apostles didn’t know he was the pope.

Why did James and John get into an argument with the other apostles over who’s greatest if they knew Peter had already been appointed to that position (Mark 10:35-41)?

Why did Paul show no deference to Peter in (Galatians 2:6)?

Why did Paul show no difference between Peter, James, and John in (Galatians 2:6-9)?

There is no clergy-laity system in the church.

The entire church constitutes a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9).

We no longer need someone standing between us and God.

Peter was not the rock upon which the church was built.

(Matthew 16:18).

In this verse, Peter is called a rock and the church is built on this rock.

However, there is a difference.

Peter – (Gr. Petros – masculine gender) meaning “small rock” or “stone.”

Rock – (Gr. Petra – feminine gender) meaning “a ledge” or “cliff.”

Some will object, saying that in Aramaic, which is what language Jesus used to speak these words, only has one word for “rock” so no distinction was made.

First, it is an assumption that Jesus spoke this using Aramaic. He may have spoken in Greek. Either could be the case, but an assumption is not proof.

The fact that Aramaic only uses one word, but is translated by two words in Greek is evidence against Jesus saying Peter was the rock upon which the church was built.

Matthew, by inspiration, made a distinction in the two words when he wrote this in Greek.

Choosing two different words indicates that Matthew understood there was a distinction that needed to be made.

Conclusion:

Friends, there is absolutely no evidence of Peter being the first pope.

In fact, there is no mention in all of Scripture of an office called “the pope,” no qualifications given for it, and no apostles recognizing it.

What we witnessed was not a biblical matter, but an extra biblical event that are the fruits of “going beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6).

May we do our best to point people back to Jesus and the Bible he gave us and away from following an extra biblical system that follows a man.