top of page
Search
Writer's pictureEdward D. Andrews
Jul 1611 min read

Was Peter the First Pope?

The Claim of Papal Primacy


The Basis of the Claim


The 1870 Vatican Council decreed that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Peter, asserting that this primacy is a divine institution. This claim is rooted in the interpretation of Matthew 16:16-19 and John 21:15-17, where Jesus addresses Peter. According to this view, Jesus' words to Peter established him as the foundational rock of the Christian church, conferring upon him a unique leadership role that is inherited by his successors, the popes.


“Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, S.J., has been elected as Supreme Pontiff, the 265th successor of Peter.”​—VATICAN INFORMATION SERVICE, VATICAN CITY, MARCH 13, 2013.


“The bishop of Rome has the right of primacy above the universal Church, since he is the successor of Saint Peter, who received such prerogative from Jesus Christ.”​—THE PRIMACY OF THE BISHOP OF ROME DURING THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES, 1903, BY VINCENT ERMONI.


“If, then, anyone shall say . . . that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this primacy; let him be anathema [that is, be declared a heretic].”​—THE FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL, JULY 18, 1870.


To millions of Catholics around the world, this decree is a binding dogma of the church. But is it a scriptural teaching? Is Pope Francis really a successor of the apostle Peter? And was Peter the first pope?



Examining Jesus’ Words: “Upon This Rock I Will Build My Church”


The Context of Matthew 16:17-18


Jesus’ words to Peter in Matthew 16:17-18 are often cited as the basis for Peter’s supposed primacy: “I say to you, you are Peter [whose name means ‘A Piece of Rock’], and upon this rock I will build my church.” However, it is crucial to examine the context and other related passages to understand this statement fully.


Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” Peter responded, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus commended Peter for this confession of faith and then stated that he would build his “church,” or congregation, on an even more solid “rock”—the one in whom Peter had just expressed faith—Jesus himself (Matthew 16:15-18).



Understanding the Rock


“At Matthew 16:17, 18, we find Jesus’ words to Peter: ‘I say to you, you are Peter [whose name means “A Piece of Rock”], and upon this rock I will build my church.’”


Was Jesus saying that his “church,” or congregation, would be built upon Peter, a man? Was Peter to be the head of all other followers of Jesus? How did the other apostles present at that conversation understand Jesus’ words? The Gospels reveal that later, on a number of occasions, they argued about who was the greatest among them. (Matthew 20:20-27; Mark 9:33-35; Luke 22:24-26) If Jesus had already given Peter primacy, or superiority, could there have been any question as to who was the greatest among the apostles?


How did Peter himself understand Jesus’ words? Growing up an Israelite, Peter would have been familiar with various Hebrew prophecies speaking of a “stone” or a “cornerstone.” (Isaiah 8:13-14; 28:16; Zechariah 3:9) When he quoted one of them in a letter to his fellow believers, Peter explained that the prophesied “cornerstone” was the Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah. Peter used the Greek term "pe’tra" (the same word found in Jesus’ statement at Matthew 16:18) for Christ alone (1 Peter 2:4-8).


The View of the Apostle Paul


The apostle Paul was another faithful follower of Jesus. Did Paul believe that Jesus had given Peter primacy? Acknowledging Peter’s position in the early Christian congregation, Paul wrote that Peter was among those “reputed to be pillars.” For Paul, there was more than just one ‘pillar.’ (Galatians 2:9) Moreover, if Peter had been appointed by Jesus as the head of the congregation, how could he simply be reputed, that is to say, supposed or thought by his fellow believers, to be a pillar?


When writing regarding certain inconsistencies in the way Peter treated people, Paul respectfully but frankly stated: “I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.” (Galatians 2:11-14) Paul did not think that Christ had built his church, or congregation, upon Peter or any other imperfect man. On the contrary, he believed that the congregation was built on Jesus Christ as the foundation. For Paul, “the rock was the Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:9-11; 10:4).



The Historical Perspective on Peter’s Role


Augustine and the Church Fathers


Consistent with the view that Christ is the rock, many of the early “Church Fathers” wrote that the rock of Matthew 16:18 is Christ. For example, Augustine in the fifth century wrote: “The Lord said: ‘On this rock-mass I will build my Church,’ because Peter had told him: ‘You are the Christ the Son of the living God.’ It is therefore on this rock-mass, that you confessed, that I will build my Church.” Augustine repeatedly stated that “the Rock (Petra) was Christ.”


Augustine and others would be considered heretics if judged according to current Catholic doctrine. In fact, according to Swiss theologian Ulrich Luz, the consensus of opinion on this subject among Bible scholars today would have been condemned by the 1870 Vatican Council as heresy.



The Evolution of the Papacy


The Development of the Title “Pope”


The title “pope” was unknown to the apostle Peter. In fact, until the ninth century, many non-Roman bishops applied the title to themselves. Even so, the term was rarely applied as an official title until the late 11th century. Moreover, no early Christian thought that a primacy supposedly given to Peter had been transmitted to any successors. Hence, German scholar Martin Hengel concluded that there is “no demonstrable historical and theological way to arrive at what later became papal ‘primacy.’”



Historical Timeline of Papal Primacy


  • 32 C.E.: Jesus foretells he will build his church, or congregation, upon himself; no primacy conferred on the apostle Peter

  • 55-64 C.E.: The apostles Paul and Peter write various letters with the underlying thought that Jesus is the only foundation of the Christian congregation

  • 254-257 C.E.: Stephen, bishop of Rome, advances the idea that he has primacy over other bishops as the successor of Peter; but other bishops, such as Firmilian of Caesarea and Cyprian of Carthage, reject Stephen’s claim

  • 296-304 C.E.: First known inscription attesting the use of the title “papa,” or “pope,” with reference to the bishop of Rome

  • 5th century: Another bishop of Rome, Leo I, uses Matthew 16:18 to affirm his primacy over other bishops

  • 6th century: Increasing use of papa (pope) as a title for the Roman bishop; however, non-Roman bishops continue to apply the term to themselves until the ninth century

  • 1075: Gregory VII declares that “pope” is an exclusive title for the bishop of Rome; his Dictatus Papae (Papal Dictates) makes the papacy “appear as a replacement for Christ,” according to one historian

  • 1870: The First Vatican Council decrees that “the Roman pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and is true Vicar of Christ, and Head of the whole Church.”



Scriptural Examination of Papal Primacy


Jesus’ True Foundation


The Scriptures consistently identify Jesus Christ, not Peter, as the foundation of the church. Ephesians 2:20 states: "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone." This metaphor of Christ as the cornerstone emphasizes that the church is built upon Jesus’ teachings, sacrifice, and resurrection.


The Role of Peter in the Early Church


While Peter was a prominent leader in the early Christian community, he was not portrayed as having supreme authority over all other apostles. Instead, he worked alongside them, and any disputes or errors, such as the one Paul corrected in Galatians 2:11-14, were addressed openly and collectively. This collaborative approach aligns with the New Testament depiction of church leadership as a shared responsibility among many faithful servants.


The Consensus Among Early Christians


The historical records show that early Christians did not recognize any single bishop, including the bishop of Rome, as having universal primacy over the entire church. The idea of a single, supreme pontiff developed gradually and was influenced by political and ecclesiastical factors rather than direct apostolic succession or scriptural mandate.


Evaluating the Catholic Dogma


The Catholic dogma of papal primacy, as defined by the First Vatican Council, lacks a clear scriptural foundation. The New Testament does not support the notion that Peter held a unique, transferable primacy over the Christian church. Instead, it emphasizes Christ as the true foundation and the apostles as equal pillars supporting the church’s growth and development. For each one of us, then, the important question is, have I found that true congregation built upon Jesus Christ?



Was Peter Ever in Rome?


The Roman Catholic Claim


The Foundation of Papal Primacy


According to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, the foundation of its claim to apostolic primacy is heavily dependent on the belief that the apostle Peter resided and died in Rome. The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1911 states, “This constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.” This belief is pivotal to the Church's structure and authority, as it asserts that Peter's presence and martyrdom in Rome underpin the legitimacy of the pope's leadership as his successor.


“This constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.”—The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911.


Historical Testimonies and Biblical Evidence


Was Babylon Rome?


The earliest testimony cited to support Peter’s presence in Rome is found in 1 Peter 5:13: “She who is in Babylon, a chosen one like you, sends you her greetings.” Some Roman Catholic interpretations assert that “Babylon” here symbolizes Rome. The New American Bible, a modern Catholic translation, includes a footnote identifying “Babylon” as “Rome which, like ancient Babylon, conquered Jerusalem and destroyed its temple.” However, this interpretation is not without problems.


At the time Peter wrote his letter, no clear correspondency existed between Babylon and Rome because Jerusalem was not destroyed by the Romans until 70 C.E., years after Peter’s supposed execution. Thus, identifying Babylon with Rome is more interpretive than factual. Historical records suggest that the literal Babylon on the Euphrates still existed and had a substantial Jewish population. This aligns with Peter’s known mission to the Jews. (Galatians 2:7-9)



Analysis of Ancient Testimonies


Clement’s Testimony


Clement of Rome is often cited as evidence that Peter resided in Rome. He wrote:


“Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects.”


However, Clement does not explicitly state that Peter was in Rome. He refers to Paul preaching “both in the east and west,” suggesting that Peter may have been active in the east, such as in Babylon. This interpretation casts doubt on the assertion that Peter was martyred in Rome.


Ignatius’ Testimony


Ignatius of Antioch, writing in the late first and early second centuries, mentioned Peter and Paul in his epistle to the Romans: “I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man.” Some interpret this as evidence of Peter’s presence in Rome. However, Ignatius simply acknowledges their apostolic authority, not necessarily their physical presence in Rome. Commandments can be issued through letters, messengers, or visits from others, making a personal presence in Rome unnecessary.


The Testimony of Irenaeus


Irenaeus, writing in the second century, is often cited as evidence that Peter was in Rome. He wrote:


“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.”


This claim, however, is derived from a poor Latin translation of Irenaeus’ lost Greek texts. The reliability of this translation is questionable. Louis Ellies Dupin, a Roman Catholic historian, acknowledged that similar forgeries were created to support various church claims.


Biblical Evidence and Early Church Understanding


Christians in Rome Before Paul


The presence of Christians in Rome before Paul’s arrival contradicts the idea that Peter founded the Roman church. The introduction to the book of Romans in the Catholic New American Bible states:


“Since neither early Christian tradition nor Paul’s letter to the Romans mentions a founder of the Christian community in Rome, it may be concluded that the Christian faith came to that city through members of the Jewish community of Jerusalem who were Christian converts.”


Acts 2:10 mentions “sojourners from Rome” who were present at Pentecost and likely brought Christianity back to Rome. This could explain the early establishment of the Roman Christian community without Peter’s direct involvement.



Archaeological Testimony


Examination of Alleged Relics


Archaeological claims regarding Peter’s presence in Rome, such as the discovery of a small funeral monument and bones believed to be his, lack conclusive evidence. The New Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges:


“Anatomical and geological examination indicate that these bones are of the 1st century; among them are the bones of a man of large frame. But there is no way of proving that they are the bones of St. Peter.”


This lack of proof further undermines the claim that Peter resided and died in Rome.


Conclusion: Scriptural and Historical Analysis


The Primacy of Peter in Question


The claim that Peter was in Rome and that this establishes the apostolic primacy of the Bishops of Rome is not supported by conclusive biblical or historical evidence. The Bible emphasizes that Christ is the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20) and does not provide any clear indication that Peter held a unique, transferrable primacy.


Peter’s mission was primarily to the Jews, which aligns with his presence in Babylon rather than Rome. Early church writings and archaeological evidence do not definitively establish Peter’s presence in Rome. Thus, the foundational claim of the Roman Catholic Church regarding the apostolic primacy of Peter lacks scriptural and historical support.


About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).


RECOMMENDED READING


19 views0 comments

Comments

bottom of page