Was the Apostle Peter the first Pope?
1, March 31, 2008For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus . . .
2 Timothy 2:5
The Roman Catholic contention is that Saint Peter was the first Pope, the author of papal succession, and the “head of the church,” in spite of and in direct contradiction to that title already being given to no sinful, fallible man but to the Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians 5:23). Romish tradition teaches that not only did the Apostle Peter visit Rome, but that he pastored a church in Rome, died in Rome, is buried in Rome, and St. Peters Basilica is standing where Peter is supposed to have been martyred and buried. The Bible never makes mention of any of these things and the word “pope” isn’t even found in the Bible.
I have posted below sixteen evidences (not “traditions”) for your consideration. Some of these facts were adapted from this website but the majority of this following information came from John MacArthur’s great sermon entitled Unmasking the Pope and the Catholic System. As always, I welcome your comments.
01- The Bible never says that Peter was a pope, nor does it say that he was the “head of the church.” The RCC takes biblical texts out of their context to support this pretext.
02- The Bible never mentions the word “pope.” (It also never mentions the words “monk” or “rosary” either. And the only mention of the word “nun” is in reference to a place, not a position in the church.)
03- There’s no archeological or historical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome.
04- The Bible lends additional support to the lack of evidence for Peter ever being in Rome. In Romans 15:20, the Apostle Paul says that he, aspired “to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, so that I would not build on another man’s foundation . . .” Had Peter been in Rome, then Paul wold not have evangelized there since Paul said he didn’t want to build on another man’s foundation.
05- Paul greets a myriad of people in Romans chapter 16, yet makes absolutely no mention of Saint Peter. If Peter was the pope or “head of the church” in Rome, this would be a grievous oversight/omission on Paul’s part.
06- Paul greets ten people in Rome throughout his letter 2 Timothy; none of them are Peter.
07- When mentioning the pillars of the Church (not the heads as Christ is the only head of the Church), the Apostle Paul mentions Peter before John but after James (Galatians 2:9). Is this any way for a pope to be recognized?
08- Peter was never called to preach to the Gentiles (which would have been those in Rome). Peter was entrusted with the Gospel to the circumcised–the Jews. (Galatians 2:7-8).
09- There’s no mention of Peter being the head of the Roman Church. He wasn’t even the head of the Jerusalem Church; James was. (See Galatians chapter 2 and Acts chapter 15).
10- Peter never considered himself the head of the Church (i.e. the pope). In the introduction of his letter letter (1 Peter 1:1), he simply calls himself “an apostle of Jesus Christ.” Notice he did not call himself the apostle, pope, or even “head of the church.” And he most certainly did not refer to himself with the ridiculous and blasphemous name “holy father.” Ridiculous and blasphemous because no man should ever accept that title; it is reserved for One and One only.
11- Peter further clarified his view of himself when he referred to himself as a “fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ . . .”. (1 Peter 5:1). He equates himself on the same level as the others he was writing this letter to.
12- Who was calling the shots? Apparently Peter, the supposed “head of the church,” wasn’t. He was being told what to do by the elders of the Church (Acts 8:14). Shouldn’t the “head of the church” be the one giving instruction and direction? See additional examples of the leaders and elders of the church giving directions, not Peter: Acts 11:22, Acts 15:22-27, Acts 21:18, Acts 21:23-24.
13- The Apostle Paul opposed Peter to his face (Galatians 2:11) because Peter “stood condemned.” Hardly the thing for someone to do to the Roman Catholic “head of the church”–the pope!
14- Jesus called Peter “Satan,” and said he (Satan via Peter’s attempt to unwittingly thwart Jesus from His mission) was a stumbling block to Jesus (Matthew 16:21-23). Is this any way to talk to a pope?
15- Peter acted cowardly and denied the Lord Jesus (Matthew 26:69-75). Is this any way for a pope to act?
16- And finally, the history of the early Church as accounted in the book of Acts makes absolutely no mention of Peter after chapter 15. For someone who is supposed to be the “head of the church” and the first pope, you’d think there’d be more mention of him in this book of Church history. Instead, Peter kind of vanishes after this point.
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority.
Colossians 2:8-10
Posted by Pilgrim


