Catholics claim that the apostle Peter was the first Pope. They even developed a special doctrine known as “the primacy of Peter” to accommodate their view that Peter was the chief of the apostles. They cite the “keys-of-the-kingdom” language in Matthew 16:18, 19 in defense of this view. However, this is not what Jesus taught. Jesus said,
“And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Catholics make some big mistakes in their handling of this passage:
- They claim that the “rock” of this passage is Peter himself. While it is true that Peter’s name means rock, it is not the same type of rock as the “rock” upon which Jesus said He would build His church. The word “Peter” is from the Greek word petros, meaning a detached stone — one that might be easily thrown or moved. However, the word “rock” is from the Greek word petra. The difference is clearly seen in Matthew 7:24 where Jesus described the wise man as one who built his house up the “rock” (petra). The word “petra” means a mass of rock or a cliff. It is rock that cannot be easily moved or thrown.
- There is also the simple matter of linguistics. The word “Peter” is masculine. The word “rock” is feminine. The Greek word for “this” (tauta) is also feminine, thus not referring to (masculine) Peter! There is also the simple matter of grammatical construction. Jesus said, “You are Peter, and on this rock…” By distinguishing “you” (Peter) from “this” (rock), Jesus distinguishes Peter from the rock. Peter was one thing and the rock was something entirely different. The “rock” to which Jesus referred was His own deity. Peter acknowledged this great reality when he confessed the divinely revealed truth that Jesus was “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16-17). This divine foundation was prophesied by Isaiah (Isa. 28:16) and confirmed by Peter to be Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:5-8). The “rock” upon which Jesus built His church was not Peter, nor merely Peter’s confession, but rather the great reality that stood as the basis of Peter’s confession — the deity of Jesus Christ.
- Catholics argue that Peter must have held a “prime” position among the apostles since he was given “the keys of the kingdom” and special binding and loosing powers. This argument completely ignores the fact that Jesus later made this same promise to all of the apostles. Matthew 18:18 says, “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.” Matthew 16:19 must be interpreted in connection with Matthew 18:18. What applied to Peter applied also to the other apostles. This fact cannot be lightly dismissed.
- Catholics argue that this binding and loosing power was native to Peter (and subsequent “popes”) and that it enabled him to unilaterally issue decrees and edicts in the place of God. This exegesis is just as sloppy as their claim that the church was built upon the little pebble of the apostle Peter. The phrases “will be bound” and “will be loosed” must be interpreted in light of the context. The New American Standard Bible best represents the force of the tense when it translates these phrases “shall have been bound in heaven” and “shall have been loosed in heaven.” The reason is simple and obvious. The apostles were promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit to teach them all things, bring all things to their remembrance, and show them things to come (John 14:26; 16:13). Peter confirmed this when he attributed the apostles’ preaching to the operation of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:14-21). Their mission began on that very day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4), which was some time after the Lord’s promise. Hence Jesus, speaking prospectively of what would happen beginning on Pentecost, used the language that He did in Matthew 16:19. Jesus did not mean that Truth would originate with Peter (or other apostles). He meant that the apostles would speak what God had already determined to be the Truth. “All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God…,” (not of man, and see 2 Peter 1:16, 20, 21).
Catholics teach the doctrine of papal infallibility and claim that Peter was the first pope. However, Peter was not infallible. Almost immediately following the “keys” narrative discussed above, Matthew 16:23 records Jesus’ rebuke of Peter for his failure to be “mindful” of the things of God. Matthew 17:4 describes Peter’s misconception about the superiority of Christ over Moses and Elijah. Matthew 26:69-75 records his three-time betrayal of Jesus following His arrest. Galatians 2:11-14 records the time when Peter behaved hypocritically and was openly rebuked by the apostle Paul. Though an apostle, Peter was a fallible man.
As for the Catholic notion of “the primacy of Peter,” Jesus explicitly taught that no apostle would be greater than any other in the kingdom. He even rebuked the apostles for having such ambitious thoughts (Matthew 20:20-24; Luke 22:24-27). In the previous paragraph I pointed out that Paul once rebuked Peter at Antioch. Galatians 2:11-14 certainly doesn’t suggest that Peter had primacy over Paul!
Catholics teach that popes cannot be married. It is said that their only marriage is to the church. This is a blasphemous claim, for the New Testament teaches that the church is married to Christ (Ephesians 5:22-32; 2 Cor. 11:2, 3). Their doctrine about the pope being married to the church makes the church an adulteress! The traditional catholic view has the church being married to both the pope and Christ at this same time.
The New Testament teaches that Peter was married. Matthew 8:14 speaks of Peter’s “wife’s mother” and in 1 Corinthians 9:5 Paul spoke of his right to take along a believing wife “as do the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas.” Either the Catholics are wrong about Peter being the first pope or they are wrong in their prohibition of marriage for popes. They cannot be right about both claims.
Peter was not a pope, for the very concept of the papacy is both unscriptural and an affront to God.