WAS APOSTLE PETER THE HEAD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH AND THE FIRST ROMAN CATHOLIC POPE?
By Ezekiel Kimosop
Let me start by acknowledging that this is a fairly technical question that deserves an informed response. My view is that Scripture provides answers for every question touching on our Christian faith and practice. I will attempt this question on the basis of my discernment of the teaching of Scripture.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that apostle Peter was the first leader of the New Testament church and that the Roman Catholic papacy flows directly and uninterrupted from Apostle Peter to the current Pope. One of the earliest claims to apostolic papacy can be traced to Leo I, a 5th century Bishop of Rome. This assertion continued to develop until the institution of papal authority was firmly established in 1075 AD. [1]. Evangelical tradition rejects this claim on a number of biblical grounds that we shall examine in detail.
Let us first evaluate the argument by Roman Catholics that Peter was the undisputed head of the New Testament Church and accordingly was the first Pope. There are two passages that are cited by Roman Catholics in support of this claim. The principal passage on which this Catholic orthodoxy stands is Matthew 16:12-19. In this passage Jesus asked two important questions: First, who people generally thought that He was and, secondly, who the disciples thought that He was. Notice that both questions was directed to all the disciples. The Greek word for the pronoun "you" in Matthew 16:15 is in the personal nominative plural. This definitely confirms that the question was not specifically directed to Peter but to all the disciples. Peter just happened to be the first to respond.
The fact that Jesus acknowledged that God revealed the truth of His divine identity to Peter in Matthew 16:17 does not imply that the same truth could not have been revealed to any of the other disciples. We should bear in mind that this is the same Peter who would shortly thereafter attempt to stand in the way of Jesus' match to the cross and was sharply rebuked by His Master (Matthew 16:23). Peter later denied Jesus following Jesus' arrest and detention. This fulfilled Jesus' prediction of Peter's denial.
One of the most debated sections of this passage of Scripture is Matthew 16:18 where Jesus says, "You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." This text is critical to the understanding of the revelation of Jesus' divinity and His works of the cross. Roman Catholics insist that Jesus proclaimed Peter's preeminence, that he was the rock on which the church was to be built. When we read this verse with the next verse of Matthew 16:19, we begin to realize the import of the meaning of Jesus' declaration.
Did Jesus imply by this statement that Peter is the rock on whom the church would be built?
The word "rock" is often used metaphorically in Hebrew thought to indicate a firm, sound or secure foundation or certainty of a matter. For instance, David metaphorically refers to God in Psalm 18:2 as "my Rock and my fortress... " Evangelical scholars disagree with the Roman Catholics on their literal interpretation of the text on the basis that Jesus alone is the "Rock" and the only true theological foundation of the Christian faith. My view is that the New Testament Scriptures appear to affirm the view that Jesus Christ is the true rock, the foundation upon whom the church is built. 1 Corinthians 3:11 says, "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." We can therefore consider the word "rock" as metaphorical of the revelation that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God. This revelation lies at the the foundation of our Christian faith in all ages. David Guzik opines that Jesus was anticipating or prophesying what would come from these disciples and those who would believe in their message that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. [2]
The second passage cited by Roman Catholics in support of Peter's elevated position is John 21:15-19. They argue that since Jesus specifically addressed Peter and gave him the command to feed the church, Peter was preeminent over the rest of the apostles. He never declared that Peter would exercise preeminence over the rest of the apostles. Instead, Jesus foretold Peter's return to his ministry calling. Evangelical scholars identify the above passage with Peter's restoration after he had earlier denied the Lord and led seven disciples to return to their fishing business. This was a clear sign that Peter had abandoned his ministry calling and that Jesus' exhortation was timely (John 21:2-3). They note further that the instructions to Peter were not exclusive to him per se representative of the rest of the disciples since the church ministry burden was a collective assignment for the entire apostolic body.
It is instructive that Peter later writes to church elders in his first epistle exhorting them to shepherd the flock of God. He admitted that he was an elder among them (1Peter 5:1-2). If feeding and tending the flock was Peter's exclusive task as the principal overseer of the universal church, why does he appear to delegate it under his first Letter? Why does he consider himself as a fellow elder if indeed he was the chief Apostle?
The Jamieson Faussett's Bible Commentary observes that Jesus was the focus of the statement of Matthew 16:19, saying, it was "not on the man Simon Bar-jona; but on him as the heavenly-taught confessor of a faith" [3].
We have already noted that Peter became a stumbling block to Jesus shortly after the discourse of Matthews 16:15-19. Peter had confronted Jesus in an attempt to dissuade Him from facing the cross. This shows that Peter was yet to appreciate the scope and burden of Jesus' earthly ministry. At this point, Peter did not appear to have received or discerned the revelation of God regarding Jesus' earthly ministry and His sacrificial death on the cross.
Fausset's Commentary adds that the keys given to Peter were limited to opening the door of faith to Jews first, then to Cornelius and a few Gentiles. The rest of the doors were opened by Paul and others. It adds that Peter did not exercise any authority over the rest of the apostles, saying that James [the brother of our Lord] appeared to be more prominent and authoritative than Peter in view of the latter's disgraceful conduct at Antioch (Galatians 2:10-14) and the fact that James' proposals were unanimously carried and adopted at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:19). It is also instructive that Paul's second delegation to Jerusalem was received by James (Acts 21:17-18). No mention is made of Peter at all.
Peter's apostolic stature appears to have declined at this point. In fact Peter's last mention in the Book of Acts is in Acts 15:7. He was later mentioned in negative light in Galatians 2:11-14 concerning his embarrassing conduct in Antioch where he had refused to mingle with Gentile believers and was sharply rebuked by Paul.
Peter was later mentioned twice in Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians in connection with the Corinthian church conflict, suggesting that the claim to Peter's universal leadership was doubtful (1Corinthians 1:12, 3:22). Paul also twice mentions Peter in connection with his teaching on apostolic privileges where he reveals that Peter was married, a privilege that Paul voluntarily forfeited to the glory of God (1Corinthians 9:5). Paul acknowledged that Peter was among those that saw the risen Christ (1Corinthians 15:5). The fact that Peter was married raises eyebrows on the Roman Catholic order on priestly celibacy!
Paul was at one point compelled to defend his apostolic authority after critics cast doubt on his stature. Paul reveals in Galatians 1:18 that he had gone to Jerusalem to see Peter and stayed with him for fifteen days. Notice the he also mentions James, the Lord's brother among the dignitaries he met during that occasion. While it is not clear what informed Paul's mission to Jerusalem, this visit does not qualify the Roman Catholic claim that Paul's Gentile ministry was subordinate to the Jerusalem church.
In all other subsequent letters written by Paul, no mention is made of Peter.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
In view of our analysis of Scripture, the following ten statements serve to refute the Roman Catholic church claim to Peter's universal apostolic authority:
1) Paul considered Peter and James as his peers who exercised apostolic oversight on the Jerusalem church in the same way that Paul oversaw the Gentile churches. In Galatians 2:9, Paul considered James, Cephas (Peter) and John as the joint pillars of the Jerusalem Church who gave him a hand of fellowship. Notice that the order of mention suggests that Peter was probably second in command at this point! Notice further that James, the brother of our Lord, was not an apostle of Jesus Christ but later rose to prominence as a leader in the Jerusalem Church [See the list of the twelve apostles in Matthew 10:2-4].
James is the author of the Epistle of James in which he does not lay any claim to apostolic stature. He simply identifies himself as "a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" (James 1:1). Apostle James, the brother of John, had earlier been martyred by Herod (Acts 12:2). Both were the sons of Zebedee, whose mother asked Jesus to place them in prominent positions in His Kingdom (Matthew 20:20-23).
At no time did Paul subordinate his apostolic authority to Peter or to any of the leaders of the Jerusalem church. This fact deals a devastating blow to the Romans Catholic dogma on the universal authority of Peter over the New Testament church.
2) There were two distinct church communions or sees in the New Testament period. The Jerusalem Church was a separate communion from the Gentile Church even though the two later established doctrinal symmetry during the Jerusalem church council of Acts 15. There is no single Scripture passage that suggests that Peter exercised apostolic authority over the Gentile church in Macedonia, Achaia and Asia Minor. The apostolic mandate over the Gentile see was exclusively vested in Paul.
3) Peter never claimed any special authority in any of his two Epistles and none of the apostolic writers of Scripture ever came close to acknowledging such claims. In fact none of the New Testament letters after Galatians makes any mention of Peter. Peter himself acknowledged Paul's writings in his final exhortations of his second Epistle. This suggests that Peter considered Paul's writings as apostolic in stature and therefore binding on the New Testament church (2 Peter 3:15). Jesus alone therefore remains the Rock and Foundation of His church (1 Corinthians 3:11).
4) Paul wrote far more Epistles and headed a far wider geographical span of church ministry among the Gentiles than Peter ever did among the Jews. Besides, Paul wrote 13 Letters of the New Testament Scripture while Peter was credited with only two Letters. Apostle John wrote five Letters and James and Jude wrote only one each. There is divided opinion on the authorship of the Letter to the Hebrews. Some scholars believe that either Paul or Barnabas may have written it. If Paul actually wrote this book, that puts his stable at fourteen books, a double portion indeed. Paul therefore ranks higher than Peter in terms of canonical stature.
5) Roman Catholics insist that the papacy and the priesthood should be in the hands of celibate priests. Interestingly, Scripture reveals that Peter, unlike Paul, was married. Paul discloses that Peter enjoyed the privilege of being accompanied by his wife during his missionary travels. Paul taught that his voluntary celibacy was a personal choice that he made for the sake of ministry (1Corinthians 7:7, 9:5). It was not imposed on him by God or by any authority. The Roman Catholic order of compulsory priestly celibacy was not taught or commanded by Jesus Christ or Peter or by any writer of New Testament Scripture. None of Peter's two epistles carries any command or exhortation on priestly celibacy for church ministers. The Roman Catholic celibacy order is therefore unbiblical in every conceivable aspect.
6) Roman Catholics teach that their Popes are holy and infallible and that the popes receive their apostolic mandate under a perpetual, unbroken chain since Peter. Even if Peter was, peradventure, the head of the universal church as claimed by Roman Catholics, he was certainly not infallible. He was an ordinary saint with his set of weaknesses. He was privileged to be appointed an apostle by Jesus. Peter betrayed Jesus and briefly abandoned the ministry after Jesus was crucified. Jesus graciously restored him back to ministry after His resurrection (John 21). In a separate incident captured in Scripture, Peter acted in a hypocritical manner towards Gentile believers at Antioch despite his earlier vision of Acts 10 where Jesus taught him to embrace Gentiles. Paul sharply rebuked him for the his deplorable conduct (Galatians 2:11-14).
7) When Paul was martyred under Nero in circa 67 AD, the Gentile ministry was not handed over to Peter or to the Jerusalem church. Tradition has it that Apostle John stepped into Paul's shoes as the apostolic overseer for the Gentiles. There is compelling evidence that the three Epistles of John may have been addressed to Gentile church leaders. If Gaius who is mentioned in 3 John was the disciple of Paul mentioned in Acts 19:29, 20:4; Romans 16:23 and 1 Corinthians 1:14, then it is safe to conclude that John possibly moved to Ephesus after Paul's martyrdom and oversaw the Gentile ministry on his behalf.
Peter is nowhere mentioned in the three letters of John, not even in the Book of Revelation. This casts doubts on the claim that he exercised apostolic authority over the New Testament church.
8) Church history reveals that the Roman Catholic Church severely persecuted its critics during the dark ages of 500 AD - 1500 AD and grossly abused its religious authority by keeping the Scriptures away from the laity. Those who attempted to reproduce the Scriptures in any language other than Latin or were found with unauthorized copies were severely persecuted.
William Tyndale, the translator of the Tyndale English New Testament Bible of 1534, went into hiding thereafter but was later arrested and executed by the Roman Catholic Church through the gruesome burning in the stakes in 1536. One of the Reformation fathers, Martin Luther, who was a German Catholic priest and church scholar, rejected Roman Catholic doctrines on salvation by works and narrowly escaped persecution by a whisker after German royals refused to hand him over to the Roman Catholic Church for trial and execution. Luther was excommunicated by Pope Leo X on 3rd January 1521. [4]
Only Roman Catholic priests had the authority to keep a copy of the Catholic Bible, [then written in Latin] and the official Roman Catholic interpretation of Scripture was final and binding on the church even where it contradicted the truths of God's word. Those who were opposed to the official church doctrines and traditions were tried and summarily executed on orders from the Catholic bishops. Th Roman Catholic Church have never openly acknowledged these abuses or even publicly apologized for them. Only Pope John Paul II acknowledged the abuses in 2000.
9) Roman Catholics misrepresent the fundamental teachings of the Scripture and deny salvation by faith alone. Instead they advance a religion of meritorious works. They consider their religious traditions as having preeminence over Scripture. They insist the Scripture is subordinate to the church, saying that the church was established before the Scriptures were compiled. This claim is grossly misleading because the word of God and His divine principles eternally existed before the church was founded.
Roman Catholics also teach several unbiblical doctrines touching on Purgatory, Penance and payers for the dead.
10) The Roman Catholic Church structure defies the model of church leadership structure outlined in Scripture (cf. 1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-7). Peter never wrote a single verse on church leadership structure. Paul's writings should therefore be accepted as binding on the church in all ages. In Ephesians 4:11, the offices of the church are listed, starting with apostles [who were then alive and serving] then prophets [whose offices have been taken up by the pastorate], evangelists, pastors and teachers. No mention is made of the office of Chief Apostle or priest in the church. Paul later summarizes the spiritual and administrative offices into two: Elders (also identified as bishops or overseers) and Deacons (1Timothy 3:1-13). Again no mention is made of any superior office above these two.
This confirms that church congregations should be autonomous within a given region. Paul's apostolic team consisted of his key ministers with whom he wrote some of the Scriptures. These include Timothy, Titus, Silas, Apollos and Barnabas. The early church later designated Bishops as overseers for several churches within a given region.
Evangelic tradition holds that the office of apostle ceased after the apostolic age. This tradition was retained until the 5th Century AD when the Roman Catholic Church reconstituted church leadership structures and appointed popes and priests. The Catholic tradition denies the priesthood of believers and vests all spiritual authority on its clergy. This is contrary to the express teaching of Scripture (see Philippians 4:5-7; 1 Peter 2:9)
CONCLUSION
Let us now draw a conclusion to our response to our article question. Was Apostle Peter the Head of the New Testament Church and the first pope?
We can confidently declare that no apostle, not even Peter, can be identified as the universal head of the New Testament Church or of any subsequent church age. The Roman Catholic claim to apostolic succession since Peter is therefore inconsistent with the revelation of Scripture. Jesus Christ alone was and still is the Head of His church which He purchased with His sinless blood (Acts 20:28-29; Ephesians 1:1:22, 5:23, Colossians 1:18; 1Peter 5:4). No church leader can purport to exercise this divine oversight.
Secondly, the notion of perpetual papal authority descending from Peter is a false myth taught by Romans Catholics. It is not affirmed in any passage of Scripture. No text of Scripture teaches or implies that church leadership can operate as a monarchical dynasty! The church is distinct in all her ages as a universal communion of Christian communities who love and obey Jesus Christ and submit to the revelation and authority Scripture.
Thirdly, no church leader or believer whether a Pope, bishop, pastor, priest or elder is infallible. An infallible person is one who dwells in a state of spiritual perfection and who cannot commit sin or fail God's divine standards. No person under the sun who could have attained such spiritual perfection except Jesus Christ who came as God incarnate. Scripture proclaims that our righteousnesses are as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6).
Christ alone is impeccable and infallible. The doctrine of Christ's impeccability holds that Christ was and is eternally sinless and that he was incapable of committing sin in His incarnation.[5] This doctrine is affirmed in 2 Corinthians 5:21 where Scripture teaches that Christ "knew no sin" or "was without sin". Jesus had never experienced or entertained sin. It is incomprehensible to conceive of the contrary without bringing into question the divinity of Jesus Christ! John F. Walvoord aptly posits that "any affirmation of moral failure on the part of Christ requires a doctrine of His person which would deny in some sense His absolute deity." [6].
Finally, and contrary to the unbiblical teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, the church is not infallible while on earth. She remains imperfect. Besides, the church is subject to the authority of the word of God and has historically failed God's divine standards through the ages since Cavalry. Revelation 2-3 describes the spiritual condition of the imperfect, fallen church as it then was and now is. The church abides purely by the grace of God.
The Roman Catholic Church, by its doctrines, practices and traditions, appears to deny several fundamental truths of Scripture.
Let me close by stating that Scripture alone is the exclusive guide for our discernment of the mind of God. No denominational creed, tradition or practice can oust the authority of Scripture. The word of God in its original autographed is infallible. It is the living, active and authoritative voice of God to all people in all ages (Hebrews 4:12; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). Scripture alone is the sole compass for charting our spiritual path in this sinful world. It is the voice of God to His covenant people. The Bible exhorts us to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21).
Shalom
REFERENCES:
[1] The Evolution of Papal Primacy, JW.org., https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/wp20151201/was-peter-the-first-pope/
[2] David Guzik, Blue Letter Bible Commentary on Matthew 16:17-20, https://www.blueletterbible.org/comm/guzik_david/study-guide/matthew/matthew-16.cfm
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther
[4] Jamieson Faussett's Bible Commentary on Matthew 16:15-19, https://biblehub.com/commentaries/jfb/matthew/16.htm
[5] A. W. Pink, "The Impeccability of Christ" in Monergism, https://www.monergism.com/impeccability-christ.
[6] John F. Walvoord, "The Impeccability of Christ" in Bible.org., https://bible.org/seriespage/7-impeccability-christ.
© Ezekiel Kimosop 2023
