— Sunday Live Stream

Please join us for a Gospel Meeting with guest speaker Stephen Rogers.

November 10-13, 2024

Sunday 10 November

• Sunday Morning Bible Class – 9:30 Who IS This Jesus?
• Sunday Morning Worship – 10:30 The Deity of Jesus!
• Sunday Evening Worship – 6:30 The Humanity of Jesus.

Monday 11 November

• Monday Evening – 7:00 The Godhead.

Tuesday 12 November

• Tuesday Evening – 7:00 Jesus – 100% Man and 100% God? How Can It Be?

Wednesday 13 November

• Wednesday Evening – 7:00 Cultivating The Heart of Jesus

In our last article, we looked at some of the reasons the Catholic Church believes Peter was the first pope.  These reasons were taken from Matthew 16:18-19.  In this article, we will look at another argument they use to assert the supremacy of Peter among the apostles.  After answering that argument, we will consider some other reasons Peter could not have been the first pope.

            An argument used to teach that Peter was the first pope is centered upon the lists of the apostles we find in the Bible.  It is argued that since Peter always heads the lists he must have been the “first” among the apostles.  There are four complete lists of the apostles.  They are found in Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:13-19, Luke 6:12-16, and Acts 1:13-14, and Peter is the first on each one of these lists.  However, in the book of Galatians, Paul gives us a brief list of important figures in the church at Jerusalem.  It is interesting that Peter does not head that list.  Paul writes:  “And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.”  Only three of the apostles are mentioned.  Peter is not first.  He is listed second.  If he were really the pope of the church, surely Paul would have recognized that and honored him as the pope by listing him first. 

            While we are discussing Paul’s association with Peter, let’s look at two other things that refute the idea that Peter was the pope.  One of these things involves Paul’s perception of Peter.  He did not see Peter as being over him.  Instead, he viewed Peter as an equal.  Peter was the apostle to the Jews while Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles.  Paul even said that those who were “somewhat” in the church in Jerusalem understood this as well.  “But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (for he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.)” 

The second thing that refutes the teaching that Peter was the first pope springs from the equality just noted that existed between Peter and Paul.  On one occasion, Peter committed a sin.  Paul tells us that before some Jews came to Antioch, Peter “did eat with the Gentiles.”  This was not a sin.  God had accepted the Gentiles into the kingdom of God.  Jews and Gentiles could have and should have had fellowship with one another.  However, when the Jews come from Jerusalem, Peter “withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision” (Gal. 2:12).  Peter’s sin caused others to sin likewise, including Barnabas (Gal. 2:13).  When this happened, Paul said that he withstood Peter “to the face, because he was to be blamed” (Gal. 2:11).  If Peter had been the pope of the church, Paul would not have rebuked Peter.  What person has the right or authority to rebuke the supposed “Father on earth”?  Paul knew Peter was an apostle just as he was.  He held no sway or authority over all.  When Peter sinned, he needed to be rebuked just like all need to be rebuked when they transgress the will of God.

A major evidence that Peter was not the first pope is the fact that he was a married man.  There are two texts in the Bible that reveal this to us.  Matthew 8:14 plainly tells us of “his wife’s mother.”  “And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.”  The other passage is also plain if a person understands the qualifications of an elder.  In I Peter 5:1, Peter writes:  “The elders which are among you I exhort, whom am also an elder…”  Peter acknowledges that he was an elder.  This means that he fulfilled the qualifications of an elder.  One of the qualifications was that he had to be “the husband of one wife” (I Tim. 3:2).  It is interesting that the Catholic Church makes a big deal out of Peter’s being the pope, but if he were living today he could not be the pope. 

Previously, we learned that Paul did not elevate Peter to the position of a pope.  He looked at Peter as his equal.  The same was true of all of the apostles.  In Matthew 18:1, the disciples came to Jesus with a question.  They asked:  “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”  This question comes after the events of Matthew 16.  Why would they ask such a question if Jesus had already established Peter as the Pontiff of the church?  Jesus’ answer did not establish Peter as the Vicar of Christ.  “And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.  Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 18:2-4).  Jesus missed a perfect opportunity to affirm that Peter was the pope on this occasion.  He could easily have said:  “I have already told you that Peter is the greatest.”  He did not because this was not the case.  Greatness is not found in a position.  Greatness is found in humility and servitude.

Another passage that proves Peter was not the pope is found in I Corinthians 3.  The church at Corinth was severely divided over several issues.  One of them involved the individuals who had baptized them into Christ.  “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ” (I Cor. 1:12).  If Peter had been the pope, those who had been baptized of him would certainly have had bragging rights.  However, this was not the case at all.  Paul made it clear that it did not matter who had baptized them.  “Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?  I have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase.  So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase” (I Cor. 3:5-7).  Peter’s name was included in the list of those over whom the church was arguing.  Paul, therefore, said of Peter that he is not anything.  Would this have been said if Peter were the pope?  Surely not!  

Lastly, there are two things that Peter never did that indicate that he was not the pope.  First, he never referred to himself as the pope.  Peter wrote two epistles to Christians of the first century.  In both of them, he called himself “an apostle of Christ” (I Pet. 1:1; II Pet. 1:1).  Second, Peter never allowed himself to be worshipped.  On one occasion, a man attempted to worship Peter.  Peter’s reaction was quick and telling.  “And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.  But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man” (Acts 10:25-26).  The occasion of this action is as important as the action itself.  Peter had come to the house of Cornelius in order to use the keys of the kingdom.  The Catholic Church affirms that this is one of the proofs of Peter’s being the pope.  Surely, Peter would allow this lowly Gentile to bow at his feet and kiss his toe.  Surely, he would allow this heathen man to praise and adore him since he was about to allow him access into the kingdom.  The pope of today would allow it.  But, Peter did not.  Peter knew he was not the pope.  He made it clear to Cornelius that he was just a man.

Dear readers, Peter was not the pope of the first century church.  He was a preacher and an apostle.  More importantly, he was a servant of Jesus Christ.  The church did not need Peter to be the head of the church.  The church had a head.  That head was Jesus Christ.  He alone has the preeminence over the body of Christ.  “And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all” (Eph. 1:22-23).

The Catholic Church teaches that the apostle Peter was the first pope of the church.  On page 254 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we read:  “The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the ‘rock’ of the Church.  He gave him the keys his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.”  There are four major arguments used by the Catholic Church in an attempt to prove that Peter was the first pope.  Let’s examine three of them in this article. 

            All three arguments come from a discussion Jesus had with apostles at the foot of Mount Hermon.  Jesus had asked them about the opinions that man had of Him.  All of them were wrong.  He, then, turns the conversation to the apostles.

                        “He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?  And Simon Peter answered                                     and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.  And Jesus answered                                       and said unto him, Blessed art thou Simon Bar-jona:  for flesh and blood hath                                               not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.  And I say also                                     unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and                                         the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  And I will give unto thee the keys                                             of the kingdom of heaven:  and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be                                              bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in                                               heaven” (Matt. 16:15-19).

The first argument used to affirm that Peter was the first pope is that the church was built upon Peter.  This is taught because the name “Peter” means rock.  This is how the Catholics read Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:18.  “And I say also unto thee, That thou art rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.”  If the English language was all that we had to make the determination, we might conclude this.  However, the New Testament was originally written in the Greek language.  In the Greek language, the words “Peter” and “rock” are different words.  Here’s what is said in the Greek New Testament.  “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build my church.  The word “petros” means a piece of a rock or a pebble.  The word “petra,” on the other hand, means a mass of rock or a huge bedrock stone.  The church was not built on a piece of a rock or a pebble.  It was built on a bedrock foundation of stone.  That foundation was the confession that Peter had just made.  The church is built upon Jesus Christ the Son of the living God.  In I Corinthians 3:11, we read:  “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”  Even Peter himself teaches us that Jesus is the rock upon which the church is built.  “Wherefore also it is contained in Scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious:  and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.  Unto you therefore which believe he is precious:  but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient:  whereunto also they were appointed” (I Pet. 2:6-8).

            The second argument set forth to prove Peter was the first pope involves the keys that were given to him.  Jesus told Peter:  “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven…”  It is noted by Catholics that only Peter was given the keys of the kingdom.  Thus, they believe that he had power the others did not have.  The question that must be asked, however, is:  “What is the purpose of keys?”  If a person has a key, he has the ability to unlock something. It was Peter who was given the privilege of unlocking the doors to the kingdom to both the Jews and the Gentiles.  In Acts 2, Peter’s peaching is the focus of that day.  “But Peter standing up with the eleven…” (v. 14).  “…and they said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles…” (v. 37).  It was Peter who answered the question:  “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37).  “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38).  Some three thousand obeyed his words (Acts 2:41).  That day, they were added by the Lord to the church (Acts 2:47).  Jews were now part of the kingdom of heaven because of Peter’s answer.

            Later in the history of the church, the door of the church was opened to the Gentiles.  It was Peter who took the gospel to the household of Cornelius.  Cornelius was told by the angel of God:  “And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter” (Acts 10:5).  It was Peter who received the vision of clean and unclean animals (Acts 10:9-16).  It was Peter who was told by the Spirit to go with the men who had been sent by Cornelius (Acts 10:19-20).  It was Peter who preached to the Gentiles (Acts 10:34-43).  It was Peter who witnessed the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the household of Cornelius (Acts 10:44-46).  It was Peter who commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 10:47-48).  Having the keys of the kingdom only made Peter the initial doorman who opened the doors of the church to both the Jews and the Gentiles. 

            The final argument regarding Peter’s position as pope found in Matthew 16, is found in these words:  “…and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”  It is alleged by the Catholic Church that Peter was the only apostle given the power to bind and loose.  This, however, is not the case.  In Matthew 18:18, this power is delegated to all of the apostles.  Jesus said:  “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”  All twelve of the apostles were the Lord’s chosen ambassadors.  Their authority to reveal the precious will of God is what enabled them to be part of the foundation of the temple of God, the church.  Listen to Paul’s words to the church at Ephesus:  “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together growth unto a holy temple in the Lord” (Eph. 2:19-21).  The church was not built on the foundation of just one apostle.  It was built upon all of the apostles. 

 In our last article, we began a study of the Pope of the Catholic Church.  We noted the numerous titles that are worn by the one who occupies the highest position in the Catholic religion.  In this article, we will examine the authority that has been granted to the Pope of Rome.

            The Bible teaches us that Jesus is the head of the church.  Paul put is very simply in Colossians 1:18.  “And he is the head of the body, the church…”  According to Catholic doctrine, the Pope is the earthly head of the Church.  On page 254, of the The Catechism of the Catholic Church, they explain his authority.  “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”  Notice the Pope is referred to as the “Vicar of Christ.”  The word “vicar” means one who serves as a substitutionary agent of another.  In other words, Catholics believe the Pope is Christ’s substitute on earth.  They affirm Jesus is the head of the Church in heaven.  On earth, however, they believe the Pope serves as the head.

            There are at least three problems with the concept of the Pope as the head of the Church.  First, it makes the church into a monstrosity.  A body is only supposed to have one head.  One body having two heads is not natural.  If we were to see a two-headed man on the streets, it would strike fear into the hearts of most.  Many, however, do not have this same perception of the Roman Catholic Church, but they should.  The Catholic Church has two heads attached to its shoulders, Jesus Christ and the Pope of Rome. 

            The second problem with having the Pope as the earthly head of the church is that it conflicts with Scripture.  Jesus, and Jesus alone, is the head of the church according to the Bible.  “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (I Cor. 11:3).  It is interesting that the pope is nowhere listed in this order.  Paul did not say:  “The head of every man is the pope, and the head of the pope is Christ.”

            When this writer was in preacher training school, he was required to quote a memory verse at the beginning of each class.  In one of brother John Renshaw’s classes, I choose to quote Ephesians 1:22-23.  Here is the way I quoted the text:  “And hath put all things under his feet, and him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.”  Brother Renshaw informed me that I had quoted the verse incorrectly and asked me to quote it again.  I quoted it just as I did the first time.  Wrong again!  I had left out one word from verse 22.  It was the little word “the” before the word “head.”  “…and gave him to be THE head over all things to the church…” (emp. mine, vme).  The article “the” is extremely important in this verse.  It affirms that Jesus is the only head of the church.  There are not two heads.  Jesus Christ is the one and only head of the body of Christ.

            The third problem having the Pope as the head of the church is that the Pope is not deity.  He is just a man.  As a man, he can err in his proclamations.  The Catholic Church had to confront this problem.  In order to do so, they created a doctrine called “ex cathedra.”  The word “ex cathedra” literally means “from the chair.”  The website, www.catholic.com, gives this explanation of this term:  “It refers to binding and infallible papal teachings which are promulgated by the pope when he officially teaches in his capacity of the universal shepherd of the Church a doctrine on a matter of faith or morals and addresses it to the entire world.”  They teach that the concept comes from Jesus who said this about the scribes and Pharisees:  “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat” (Matt. 23:2).  The Pope does not sit in Moses’ seat.  He does, however sit in the seat of Christ Catholics affirm.

            Even though the scribes and Pharisees sat in Moses’ seat, their teachings were not always infallible.  In Matthew 15, Jesus rebuked these religious leaders because their traditions conflicted with the Word of God.  “But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?…Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition…But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:3, 6, 9).  Sitting in Moses’ seat had nothing to do with bringing forth new revelation.  These men were to teach and instruct properly from the Law of Moses.  They were not to add to or take from it at all (See Duet. 4:2). 

If the Pope truly sits in Jesus’ seat, his responsibility is not to proclaim additional revelation.  He is responsible for making sure the Law of Christ is interpreted and applied properly and nothing more.  Just like the Jews of Jesus’ day, we find that Popes were said to have spoken “ex cathedra,” but their teachings were in error.  One “ex cathedra” statement involved the bodily assumption of Mary.  This proclamation is an addition to the Word of God.  There is not one statement in the New Testament that could lead to this teaching.  Adding to the New Testament is just as wrong as adding to the Law of Moses.  The apostle John warns:  “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him that plagues that are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18).  

The church of Christ does not need two heads.  Jesus Christ is deity (Col. 2:9).  He has revealed His Word to us and ratified it with His precious blood (Matt. 26:28).  It was once revealed to the saints (Jude 3) by the Holy Spirit of God (I Cor. 2:9-13).  It needs no additions or subtractions (Rev. 22:18-19).  It will govern the church until the Lord returns (II Tim. 3:16-17).  Then, the Lord will use it to judge the world (John 12:48).

The organizational structure of the church is very simple in the New Testament.  Jesus is the Head of the church.  To the church at Colossae, Paul wrote:  “And he is the head of the body, the church…”  It does not get any easier than that.  It is Jesus who controls the body.  It is He who has ultimate authority over the precious church for which He shed His blood (Acts 20:28).

            The universal church is divided into congregations that can be found in various locales.  In the New Testament we read of numerous local churches.  The first church to be established was the church in Jerusalem (Acts 2:41, 47).  In Acts 9:31, we read about churches found in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria.  We read about more churches scattered throughout Syria and Cilicia in Acts 15:41.  The Revelation was written to the seven churches of Asia (Rev. 1:4).  Jesus was the Head over all of these churches.  He ruled over them through His divine revelation found in the New Testament.

            The local congregations of the first century were autonomous units, meaning that each was self-governing.  There were no boards, associations, or conferences that oversaw the local congregations.  In order for these churches to be effective, God chose to place an eldership in each congregation.  As Paul was revisiting the churches he established on his first missionary journey, Luke tells us that he “ordained them elders in every church” (Acts 14:23).  This group of men is known by six different titles:  elders, presbyters, bishops, overseers, pastors, and shepherds.  Those who hold the office of an elder must meet the qualifications found in I Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9.  It is these men who rule (I Tim. 5:17) and oversee (I Pet. 5:1-3) the affairs of the local congregation.  The writer of Hebrews exhorted his readers to “obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves” (Heb. 13:17).  The New Testament always indicates that there was a plurality of men who occupied the position of elders (Acts 11:30; 20:17; Phil. 1:1).  We never read of a church having one man who ruled over its affairs.  The Bible nowhere authorizes for there to be one pastor, one priest, or one bishop who is in charge of a local church.

            During the history of the church, men began to change the organizational structure of the church.  Paul had warned the elders of Ephesus that apostasy would come.  He even told those them that some of them would be responsible for the departures.  “For I know this,” he said, “That after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.  Also of your ownselves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:29-30, emp. mine, vme).  The changes began very subtly.  The elders started by appointing a chairman to oversee the business meetings of the elders.  It is easy to understand that men with strong personalities could occupy these positions on a constant basis.  Too, their stubborn natures made it easy for them to control those who were weaker members of the eldership.  Whatever these men desired, the rest of the eldership accepted.  Eventually, the weak members were not needed.  One man became the authority over the entire church.  He was often referred to as “the bishop” of the church.  In time, this departure led to the development of a complex hierarchal structure within the church.  The structure resembled the structure found within the Roman government.  The man at the top within the church was not called Cesar, however.  He was referred to by the title of Pope.  When this happened, the church had completely apostatized from the original, God-given pattern of church organization.

            The word “pope” comes from the Greek term “pappaas,” and means “father.”  At one time, all bishops used the title because they were all considered fathers.  It is difficult to determine which pope was the first to apply the term to himself.  By the eleventh century, the title of pope was firmly in place for the Bishop of Rome.  This title flies in the face of the words of our precious Savior recorded in Matthew 23:9.  “And call no man your father upon the earth:  for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”  In the context, Jesus is specially referring to titles worn by men to exalt them over others.

            The office of the pope is referred to as “the papacy.”  Where the pope sits in a position of authority is called the Dioceses of Rome, the Holy See, and the Apostolic See.  The pope is the head-of-state over the Vatican City, a sovereign city-state enclaved within the city of Rome, Italy.  The pope is known by many other names:  Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God, Holy Father, Blessed Father, the Apostolic Lord, and His Holiness.

            We will be looking at this papacy in some detail in our upcoming articles.  The papacy is a radical departure from the simplicity of the New Testament pattern.  It appears to be the fulfillment of Paul’s words found in II Thessalonians 2:1-4.  Paul’s words had reference to “a falling away” that was going to occur.  Let’s set the words before you.  Please give special attention to verse four of the text.  “Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together with him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter from us, as that the day of the Lord is at hand.  Let no man deceive you by any means:  for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.”