http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2561
Was Peter the First Pope?
Many advocates of petrine tradition will argue that Peter was appointed
the “first pope.” Consider some of the arguments that are presented in
favor of this assertion.
Argument #1: Peter received the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:19).
With this statement Catholicism argues that Peter was granted supreme
power or authority over the church. Although the context in Matthew
supports no such interpretation, people of various religions agree that
Peter was granted “something special” that was given to no other
apostle. This “something” has often been misinterpreted.
We need to understand what “kingdom of heaven” means. Some people have
suggested that it refers to heaven itself, and thus, they have
represented Peter as the one who allows or prevents access into the
eternal reward. But this interpretation is inconceivable since it finds
itself in clear opposition to the context of this passage. Reading
Matthew 16:18, we understand that the subject under discussion is not
heaven itself, but the church. Therefore, Jesus spoke of the church as
being the kingdom of heaven. This is shown not only in the context of
Matthew 16:18, but it also is taught in many other passages throughout
the New Testament (e.g., Mark 9:1; Colossians 1:13; 1 Thessalonians
2:12; Hebrews 12:28).
Further, we need to understand the nature of the “keys” given to Peter.
H. Leo Boles wrote, “To use the keys was to open the door or give the
terms of entrance into the kingdom of God” (1952, p. 348). In other
words, because of Peter’s confession about Jesus (Matthew 16:16), Jesus
gave him the privilege of being the first man to tell lost souls how to
become Christians and thus become part of the Lord’s church. Barnes put
it this way:
When the Saviour says, therefore, he will give to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he means that he will make him the instrument of opening the door of faith to the world—the first to preach the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles (2005a, p. 171, italics in orig.).
There is no doubt that the “keys” represent the opportunities Peter
would have to welcome the world, for the very first time, to the
Christian age and to the kingdom of heaven—the church.
Also, we need to know
when Peter used the “keys.”
Jesus’ declaration was in a prophetic form. Peter would have the
opportunity to open the doors of the church in the future. The Bible
clearly shows us the fulfillment of this prophecy in Acts 2. Peter,
filled with the Holy Spirit like the other apostles (2:4), stood and
gave the first recorded Gospel sermon after the resurrection of Jesus
(2:14-38). It was at that moment when Jesus’ words were fulfilled.
Because of the preaching of Peter and the other apostles, 3,000 Jews
(cf. 2:5) were baptized into Christ and entered through the open doors
of the church (2:41-47). However, the church would be composed not only
of Jews, but also Gentiles. Acts 10 tells us that Peter opened the doors
of the church to the Gentiles, in the same way he opened the doors of
the church to the Jews. This was the “special something” given to Peter
because of his confession—the privilege of being the first to preach the
Gospel (after the resurrection of Christ) to both the Jews and the
Gentiles.
Peter opened the doors of the church, and since then the doors of the
church have remained open. Only Peter received this privilege. Jesus
said, “I will give
you [Peter]
the
keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:19, emp. added). There are no
individuals, such as popes, opening and closing the doors of the
church.
Argument #2: Peter received the power of binding and loosing (Matthew 16:19).
With this argument Catholicism affirms two things concerning Peter: (1)
that he received the authority to forgive sins; and (2) that Jesus
considered anything Peter would do with His church as approved,
authoritative, and good. In other words, Jesus gave him the gift of
“infallibility.”
In order to analyze what Jesus said about Peter, we must take into
account that the context of Matthew 16:19 is linked to the subject of
the church, and not to the forgiveness of sins or the concession of some
kind of infallibility about doctrinal matters. A biblical text that can
help us understand Matthew 16:19 is Matthew 18:18, where Jesus made the
same promise to
all His apostles. He said, “Assuredly,
I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and
whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Of this text,
Boles has noted, “
This is the same thought as in Matt. 16:19. This shows that it has a broader application than that of the discipline of an erring brother.
The Holy Spirit would guide the apostles in their instruction to the erring brother and the church”
(1952, p. 377, emp. added). In His declaration in Matthew 16:19, Jesus
affirmed that the conditions of the Christian system that Peter and the
other apostles would expound already had been required by Heaven.
The Greek grammar of these verses sheds more light on the meaning of
Jesus’ statement. A.T. Robertson noted that “[t]he passive perfect
future occurs in the
N.T. only in the
periphrastic form in such examples as Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18”
(1934, p. 361). Therefore, the text should read, “whatever you bind on
earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth
will have been loosed in heaven.” By saying this, Jesus declared that
resolutions made on Earth were subject to decisions made in heaven. The
apostles would preach in accordance with what was already bound or
loosed in heaven. This was based not on the infallibility of a man, but
on the infallibility of the Holy Spirit promised to the apostles in the
first century (John 16:13; cf. Matthew 10:19-20). Today we have the
inspired, infallible teachings of the Holy Spirit recorded for us in the
Bible (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Jesus
never established Peter as a pope. The titles
“Pope,” “Universal Bishop,” “Earthly Head of the Church,” “Pontiff,” and
others never came from the mouth of Jesus to describe Peter. Regardless
of the privileges given to Peter, his authority and rights were the
same authority and rights given to the other apostles of the Lord (cf. 1
Corinthians 9:1-5; 12:28; 2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11; Galatians 2:8).
WHO WAS PETER?
If Peter was not the first pope, then the question becomes, “Who was
Peter?” Was he equal to the other apostles, or did he deserve a position
of supremacy among the others? The arguments that establish Peter’s
identity may be presented as follows.
Argument #1: Peter was only a man.
Although this declaration is obvious to many, sometimes its
implications are overlooked. When Cornelius lay prostrate before Peter
(cf. Acts 10:25), he told him, “Stand up; I too am just a man” (Acts
10:26,
NASB). With this statement Peter implied three very important points: (a) that he was “
too...a man”—that is to say, a man just like Cornelius; (b) that he was “
a man”—that is to say, just like all men; and (c) that he was “
just a
man”—that is to say that he was not God, and ultimately was unworthy of
worship. Peter, with all humility, understood that his human nature
prevented him from accepting worship. On the other hand, the pope, being
just a man like Peter, expects men to bow before him, kiss his feet,
and revere him, thus receiving worship that does not belong to him. What
a difference between Peter and his alleged successors! Not even God’s
angels allow men to show adoration by kneeling before them (Revelation
19:10; 22:8-9). One can only be astonished at the tremendous audacity of
one who usurps the place that belongs only to God!
Argument #2: Peter was an apostle with the same authority and rights as the other apostles.
On one occasion, the apostles of the Lord were arguing about who was
the greatest among them (Luke 22:24), so Jesus told them, “The kings of
the Gentiles exercise lordship over them....
But not so among you”
(Luke 22:25-26, emp. added; cf. Matthew 18:1-5; Mark 9:33-37; Luke
9:46-48). Jesus never would have made this comment if Peter had more
authority and rights than the other apostles as Catholicism suggests. In
fact, if Peter was to be considered more honorable than the other
apostles, this would have been the opportune time to clarify this point
to the rest of the apostles who were “hungry for another’s glory.”
However, Jesus assured them that this would not be the case among His
apostles.
On another occasion, the mother of John and James came before Jesus
with them, asking Him to allow her two sons to sit by Him in His
kingdom, one on the right and the other on the left (Matthew 20:20-21).
Jesus pointed out that they did not know what they were asking (Matthew
20:22), and added, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it
over them....
Yet it shall not be so among you”
(Matthew 20:25-26, emp. added). If Jesus considered Peter as greater
than the other disciples, He could have clarified the issue immediately
by telling Zebedee’s wife and sons that they were asking for an honor
already given to Peter. But, He did not do that. Today it seems that
many religious people want to make it so, and exalt Peter above the
other apostles, in spite of what Jesus said.
Many Catholics try to justify their claim that Peter was the first pope
by affirming that he was the greatest of the apostles. They declare
that Peter was greater because: (1) he always is mentioned first in the
lists of the apostles (e.g., Matthew 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts
1:13); (2) he was the apostle who recognized Jesus as Lord in Matthew
16:16; and (3) Jesus told him to care for His sheep (John 21:15-19). Are
these arguments sufficient for establishing the papacy or supremacy for
Peter? No. Consider the case for any other apostle. For example, it
could be said that John was the “greatest” of the apostles because: (1)
in the Bible he is referred to as the “disciple whom Jesus loved” (John
13:23; 21:20,24); (2) he rested on Jesus’ bosom just before His arrest
(John 13:25; 21:20)—certainly a posture that suggests a close
relationship; and (3) Jesus charged him with the responsibility of
caring for His mother (John 19:26-27). Does this mean that we also
should consider John as a pope? If not, should we consider Peter as a
pope when
all of the apostles had the
same authority and their own privileges? Indeed, Jesus gave all of His disciples, not just Peter, authority (Matthew 28:19-20).
Finally, consider the words of Paul. He said: “[F]or in nothing was I
behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing” (2 Corinthians
12:11). From this verse, we conclude that Paul was inferior to none of
the apostles, and that Peter was neither lesser nor greater than Paul.
Argument #3: Peter was an apostle who had the same power as the other apostles.
Some religious people have spread the myth that Peter possessed more
miraculous power than the other apostles, and that, therefore, he was
greater than the rest. Yet, Matthew 17:14-21 presents the account of an
epileptic boy who was brought to the disciples of Jesus (including
Peter), but
they could not heal him. If Peter had a
power that was “more effective” than the other apostles’ power, he
should have been able to perform this miracle. However, the boy was
healed only after he was taken to Jesus. Jesus then reprimanded
all the apostles for their lack of faith.
Near the end of His ministry, Jesus promised
all of
His disciples that “he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will
do also; and greater works than these he will do” (John 14:12). In Acts
2, when the Holy Spirit came with power, He empowered not only Peter,
but also the rest of the apostles (vss. 1-4). This is confirmed when we
read that “fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were
done
through the apostles” (Acts 2:43, emp. added).
There is no doubt that the apostle Peter was filled with the power of
the Holy Spirit, but that power also was manifested in the rest of the
apostles and was
never grounds for considering one apostle as being superior to another.
Argument #4: Peter was a man who made mistakes.
Peter committed many mistakes just as any other person. The New
Testament records that he: (a) doubted Jesus (Matthew 14:28-31); (b)
acted impulsively against his fellow man (John 18:10-11); (c) denied
Jesus three times (Matthew 26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62; John
18:15-18,25-27); (d) was overwhelmed by his failure (John 21:3); and (e)
acted hypocritically before the church (Galatians 2:11-21; Paul
“withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed”—a confrontation
that would have been considered insolent if Peter was the “head of the
church”). We should not belittle Peter, but we must understand that
Peter, like all servants of God, had his faults and should never be
considered
greater than the other apostles, or any other Christian (cf. Matthew 11:11).
CONCLUSION
Neither Jesus, nor the apostles, nor the early Christians considered
Peter as superior to the other apostles. He was simply a man privileged
to be part of the apostolic ministry and a member of the body of Christ,
which is the church. There is only one Head of the church, and that
Head is Jesus Christ, not Peter (Ephesians 1:20-22; 5:23; Colossians
1:18; et al.).
REFERENCES
Barnes, Albert (2005),
Notes on the New Testament: Matthew and Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Boles, H. Leo (1952),
The Gospel According to Matthew (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
Robertson, A.T. (1934),
A Grammar of The Greek New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press).
