Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
St. Peter the First Pope: 120 Bible Proofs

St. Peter the First Pope: 120 Bible Proofs

Last updated on: June 13, 2026 at 1:07 pm by Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

St. Peter the First Pope: 120 Bible Proofs 2026-06-13T13:07:25-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

: Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter (c. 1482) by Pietro Perugino (1448-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

My intention here is to provide a summary-type listing of biblical statements and data regarding Peter and his status as the leader of the disciples and of the early Church, leading to the conclusion, due to cumulative effect, that he was the first pope. I am attempting to collect and crystallize all of my scores of biblical arguments along these lines in one place, as succinctly as possible. It’s especially intended for folks who claim that there is “nothing whatsoever” in the Bible about the papacy or the fact that it is an office that has a succession.

Reformed Baptist YouTube apologist Gavin Ortlund stated in his video, “The Papacy is Not from God: A Biblical and Historical Critique” (Truth Unites, 10-15-25):

2:37 The papacy is a human development within the church, not a divine institution over the church. In other words, this institution is not from God, it’s from men.

3:19 The notion of papal succession is absent from the New Testament. From Matthew to Revelation, looking very carefully, you don’t get any notion of a Petrine office of any kind, let alone one that is associated with the city of Rome specifically or Roman bishops. That whole idea comes about well after the New Testament. . . . It’s like if someone gave you a New Testament and said, “Tell me from this whether Pluto is a planet.” You would say, “It has nothing to do with that. It doesn’t talk about Pluto at all.” Or, “Tell me from the New Testament who shot JFK.” . . . Well, same with the idea of a Petrine ministry or a Petrine office. There’s Peter, but there’s no Petrine office in the New Testament. And so when people argue for the papacy from the New Testament; an ongoing office in Peter’s name and authority, then what is happening is people basically just talk about Peter and then assume succession from Peter rather than establish it. But that’s a problematic move because Peter is an apostle and the office of apostle is a redemptive historically unique office. The idea of a successive office stemming out from Peter imbued with his authority in some sense can’t simply be asserted. That needs to be demonstrated. The New Testament gives us a lot of information. It’s reasonable to expect that if there was this supreme office over the church. It’d probably come up somewhere.

He reiterates his position in a related video, “When Did the Papacy Begin? (Response to Joe Heschmeyer)” (10-29-25):

15:20 The question at hand is, “when does the papacy begin?” Okay. Is this office from God? I’m making my case that this office is not from God. I really have no doubt about that. I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming that this is a slow evolution in church history. It’s just slowly coming about way after the period of divine public revelation is over. It doesn’t go back authentically to the first century. It’s not divinely instituted by Jesus. It would not be recognized by the apostles. It’s way later after that. . . . We’re allowed to point out the lack of evidence for this claim because of how much is at stake. If it’s true that the bishop of Rome is the pastor of the entire church and can speak infallibly, it’s not wrong for us to ask for evidence. But from the time in question, the first century, when this office was allegedly instituted, not only is there no evidence of a bishop in Rome who’s the pastor of the whole church and who could speak infallibly, there’s simply no evidence for a single bishop in Rome of any kind.

Nathan Rinne, a very able Lutheran apologist, with whom I’ve engaged in several constructive and perfectly cordial debates, graciously wrote about this article of mine in the combox underneath my Facebook posting of it:

a great accounting of arguments for Peter’s primacy which every Protestant leader needs to intelligently address and deal with at some time or another, in some way or another. Gavin Ortlund clearly is not up to the task.

In 1994, one of my best-known articles was published in The Catholic Answer: “50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy & the Papacy”. This is a (long overdue) substantial, significant revision and expansion of that 31-year-old article.

Some Protestant apologists — notably Jason Engwer — have sought to counter-respond by constructing a semi-satirical “Pauline Papacy.” The goal was to demonstrate that Paul had as many or more or the same unique attributes as Peter, or in greater measure, thus supposedly undermining Petrine primacy and the papacy. But these arguments miserably fail, as I have shown in several comprehensive rebuttals. This aspect will be included alongside my “pro-Peter” arguments, in order to bolster Petrine primacy all the more and to expose the great weakness of such polemical opposing views. This will be the reason, most of the times that St. Paul is mentioned.

In due course, I will also make videos of this material, with my partner, Kenny Burchard. But first I want to get it all down in one place, in writing, so it can be a reference that can be provided for inquirers who want to learn about why Catholics believe in a papacy.

I will link in (blue-colored, bracketed) footnotes to several related articles that contain further documentation, full bibliographical information of citations of Protestant scholars, etc. All Bible passages are from RSV unless specifically indicated otherwise.

*****

1-2) Peter is the “Rock” according to Jesus:

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

John 1:42 . . . Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).

No other disciple was renamed like this. Traditionally, Protestants have contended that Peter’s confession of Christ is what Jesus built the Church upon, rather than he himself. But in the last two centuries the Catholic view that Peter himself is the rock has also become a virtual consensus among Protestant commentators and Bible scholars. I have found no less than thirty well-known Protestant scholars or reference works that agree Peter is the Rock

[1],

including R. T. France, D. A. Carson, New Bible Dictionary, Word Studies in the New Testament (Marvin Vincent), Wycliffe Bible Commentary, New Bible Commentary, Eerdmans Bible Commentary, Henry Alford, Herman N. Ridderbos, Albert Barnes, John A. Broadus, Carl Friedrich Keil, Gerhard Kittel, Oscar Cullmann, Craig L. Blomberg, Philip Schaff, The Layman’s Bible Commentary, and Encyclopaedia Britannica (article on Peter, 1985). R. T. France wrote in 1985

[1]:

It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the ‘rock’ here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as v.16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus . . .

D. A. Carson similarly stated [1]:

If it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .

Presbyterian Greek scholar Marvin Vincent agrees:

The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter’s confession, but to Peter himself, . . . The reference of petra to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: “On this rock will I build.” Again, Christ is the great foundation, the chief cornerstone, but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ’s church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Peter 2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and in ver. 5, addresses the church as living stones . . .

Equally untenable is the explanation which refers petra to Simon’s confession. Both the play upon the words and the natural reading of the passage are against it, and besides, it does not conform to the fact, since the church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors – living men . . . . . .

The reference to Simon himself is confirmed by the actual relation of Peter to the early church . . . See Acts 1:15; 2:14, 37; 3:2; 4:8; 5:15, 29; 9:34, 40; 10:25-6; Galatians 1:18. (Word Studies in the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1946 [orig. 1887], 4 vols., vol. 1, 91-92)

Critics of this scenario argue that Jesus was addressing Peter only because he spoke up at the time, not because what He was saying applied only to him. What’s going on in Matthew 16 is definitely “Peter-specific.” This counter-argument would be like saying that when God commissioned Moses for the task of being the liberator of the Hebrew slaves and the lawgiver (Exodus 3), that this was not a unique, God-given role of Moses, but a mere happenstance because Moses happened to be in the right place at the right time (Mt. Horeb, when God appeared in the burning bush), and that anyone else could have fit the bill. How absurd . . .

Such an argument would by analogy disprove the uniqueness of God’s call to Abraham as the patriarch of the Jews and exemplar of faith (Genesis 15, 17). It means nothing that God changed his name from Abram to Abraham (Gen 17:5), just as it meant nothing that God changed Jacob’s name to Israel (Gen 32:28). If we adopt this jaded outlook, the commission of Peter might have just as well been made by Jesus throwing up a stone and seeing which disciple it landed on, and then building His Church upon that person. In fact, it was all ordained by God, since Jesus noted that Peter’s proclamation that He was the Son of God (16:16) was “revealed” to him by His “Father who is in heaven” (16:17).

Name changes in the Bible (from God) always had a high significance. Other analogous examples are Abraham (from Abram: Gen 17:1-5), Sarah (Sarai: Gen 17:15), Israel (Jacob: Gen 32:28), and Paul (Saul: Acts 13:9: though it’s not specifically stated that God changed it in his case).

See also eighteen Church fathers who thought Peter was the Rock and first leader of the Christian Church

[12].

3-5) It’s claimed that Jesus is exclusively “the rock”: not Peter (cf. Mt 21:42; Acts 4:11; Rom 9:32-33; 1 Pet 2:4, 6-7). But the Bible makes it clear that others can be “rocks” or “stones” too

[2]:

Ephesians 2:19-20, 22 . . . the household of God, [20] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, . . . [22] in whom you also are built into it . . .

1 Peter 2:5 and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, . . .

Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city [of heaven] had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Note that the foundation of the Church consists not only of our Lord Jesus Christ, but also “apostles and prophets”: and Peter was an apostle. So it follows that Jesus calling him — as a person and His disciple — a Rock upon whom he built His Church (the preeminent human one; specifically and exclusively named and renamed for the purpose) is completely consistent and plausible (a typically biblical “both/and” paradox). Compare 1 Cor 3:9: “we are God’s fellow workers”; 2 Cor 6:1: “Working together with him”; Mk 16:20: ” the Lord worked with them”. The Good Shepherd (Jn 10:11) gives us other shepherds as well (Eph 4:11).

6-7)

Matthew 16:19a I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .

The “power of the keys” has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (cf. Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances, and legislative powers. In the Old Testament a steward, or prime minister is a man who is “over a house” (see several related passages below). I have collected fifteen Protestant scholars or reference works that exegete this passage in conjunction with Isaiah 22, as Catholics do

[3].

Here are some of their most relevant remarks:

R. T. France (1989):

Not only is Peter to have a leading role, but this role involves a daunting degree of authority . . . The image of ‘keys’ (plural) perhaps suggests . . . the steward, who regulates its [the house’s] administration . . . an authority derived from a ‘delegation’ of God’s sovereignty.

F. F. Bruce (1983):

The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or majordomo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . . (Isaiah 22:22). [4] So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward.

New Bible Dictionary (1962):

In the . . . exercise of the power of the keys, in ecclesiastical discipline, the thought is of administrative authority (Is 22:22) [4] with regard to the requirements of the household of faith. The use of censures, excommunication, and absolution is committed to the Church in every age, to be used under the guidance of the Spirit . . . So Peter, in T. W. Manson’s words, is to be ‘God’s vicegerent . . . The authority of Peter is an authority to declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community. His decisions will be confirmed by God’ (The Sayings of Jesus, 1954, p. 205).

Craig S. Keener, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, 1999, pp. 429-430):

“Keys” opened locked doors or gates, but the carrying of such keys especially symbolized the bearer’s authority . . . One who bore keys to a royal palace was a majordomo; as in Isaiah 22:22; Revelation 3:7 . . . Whether Peter acts as “prime minister” for the kingdom . . . or perhaps as a “chief rabbi” making halakic rulings based on Jesus’ teachings . . ., he clearly acts on sufficient delegated authority. . . . Peter may thus function as the representative eschatological missionary, a “fisher of men” par excellence . . . Non-Matthean tradition retains this special role for Peter; thus, for example, Acts [10:44] indicates that he opened an official door to the Gentiles . . .

This office of chief steward that assisted the Jewish king, called majordomo, incidentally had succession as well:

Isaiah 22:15, 19-22 Thus says the Lord GOD of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him: . . . [19] I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. [20] In that day I will call my servant Eli’akim the son of Hilki’ah, [21] and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. [22] And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. (cf. 2 Kgs 18:18: “Eli’akim the son of Hilki’ah, who was over the household”)

Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin comments on this:

Isaiah 22:15–25 involves more than Eliakim. It is a succession passage in which the current chief steward of the house of David—a man named Shebna—is to be replaced by Eliakim. This illustrates the ongoing nature of the office. It was not a temporary one. As long as the house of David endured, kings employed chief stewards to manage affairs on their behalf. This is part of the background to Peter’s office. By appointing Peter the chief steward of the house of the New David, Jesus is instituting an office meant to exist as long as the house of the New David—i.e., the Church—exists. (“A Continuing Papacy”: 1-30-23)

This ongoing office was present both for the kings of Judah:

1 Kings 4:1-2, 6 King Solomon was king over all Israel, [2] and these were his high officials: . . . [6] Ahi’shar was in charge of the palace; . . .

2 Kings 15:1, 5 In the twenty-seventh year of Jerobo’am king of Israel Azari’ah the son of Amazi’ah, king of Judah, began to reign. . . . [5] And the LORD smote the king, so that he was a leper to the day of his death, and he dwelt in a separate house. And Jotham the king’s son was over the household, governing the people of the land.

And for the kings of Israel:

1 Kings 16:8-9 In the twenty-sixth year of Asa king of Judah, Elah the son of Ba’asha began to reign over Israel in Tirzah, and reigned two years. [9] But his servant Zimri, commander of half his chariots, conspired against him. When he was at Tirzah, drinking himself drunk in the house of Arza, who was over the household in Tirzah,

1 Kings 18:3 And Ahab called Obadi’ah, who was over the household. . . .

2 Kings 10:5 So he who was over the palace, and he who was over the city, together with the elders and the guardians, sent to Jehu, . . .

This office of “chief steward” to the king was analogous to Joseph’s in Egypt under the Pharaoh:

Genesis 41:39-44 So Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Since God has shown you all this, there is none so discreet and wise as you are; [40] you shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command; only as regards the throne will I be greater than you.” [41] And Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Behold, I have set you over all the land of Egypt.” [42] Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his hand and put it on Joseph’s hand, and arrayed him in garments of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck; [43] and he made him to ride in his second chariot; and they cried before him, “Bow the knee!” Thus he set him over all the land of Egypt. [44] Moreover Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I am Pharaoh, and without your consent no man shall lift up hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.”

And so both offices are prototypes of the papacy, as indicated by Jesus’ reference to the “keys” that hearkens back to Isaiah 22 and these other instances of the same office of chief steward or vizier, as Joseph’s office is sometimes known. Note also that Peter’s “keys” are symbolic of his high office, in a way similar to how Joseph’s “signet ring” and “gold chain” were symbols of his.

The New Testament continues the same motif in many other passages as well: the owner of the vineyard in Jesus’ parable had a steward (Mt 20:8). King Herod had a steward named Chuza (Lk 8:3). Jesus referred to “the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household” (Lk 12:42). St. Paul regarded himself and “God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor 3:9) such as Apollos and Cephas (Peter: 3:22) as “stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor 4:1), and he stated that he possessed a “stewardship of God’s grace” (Eph 3:2). He also proclaimed that a “bishop” was “God’s steward” (Titus 1:7).

Matthew 16:19b . . . and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

“Binding” and “loosing” were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to “forbid” and “permit” with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to “condemn” or “place under the ban” or “acquit”

[4] [5].

Thus, St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life, by virtue of revelation and the Spirit’s leading (Jn 16:13), and to demand obedience from the Church. “Binding and loosing” represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops, who succeeded the disciples and apostles (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in a singular sense, making him — in terms of the biblical “method” — preeminent.

Peter was regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself, singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2):

John 21:15-17 . . . Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” [16] A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” [17] He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.”

Jesus is talking about how it is Peter’s role to guide the sheep and teach the Christian flock. It’s all perfectly consistent with Petrine primacy and the papacy. Jesus is the Good Shepherd; so is Peter, in the earthly sense. The shepherd tends to his flock. Jesus’ “sheep” are clearly Christian believers. This is who Peter feeds and tends in a universal sense. John 21 shows that Peter is singled out, as opposed to others being addressed as a collective. It’s much like referring to the President of the United States, as compared to the collectives of Senators or Congressmen in the House or cabinet members.

Jesus tells Peter to “Feed my lambs” (21:15) and “Tend my sheep” (21:16) and “Feed my sheep” (21:17). Why does He do that? It’s because — again — Peter was the leader, and that was what leaders do: the shepherd and the sheep who follow him: the sheep he cares for. It seems rather obvious that the deeper meaning is Peter as the Chief shepherd of and over other Christians. The Greek word for “tend” in 21:16 is poimaino, which is applied to Jesus Christ in Revelation 7:17 above, and also in Matthew 2:6, and Revelation 2:27, 12:5, and 19:15. It is used of bishops in Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:2 (which seems to be a passage perhaps reminiscent in St. Peter’s mind of the Lord’s charge to him). Clearly, an awesome amount of spiritual authority is being given to Peter.

[7]

See nine Church fathers — including Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, and Chrysostom — who regarded John 21 as a “papal” passage

[12].

The devil seems to have specifically targeted Peter, according to Jesus, precisely — I submit — because he was the leader of the Church, which caused Jesus in the next verse to mention this as something that He prayed for:

Luke 22:31 Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat,

Peter alone among the disciples — or anyone else — was mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith may not fail”:

Luke 22:32a but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail . . .

Are we to believe that no other disciples would have instances of failed faith? Only one of them, after all, was present at His crucifixion (St. John). Did none of them experience a lack of faith during that terrible time of His Passion? Of course they did! “Doubting Thomas” is an obvious example. So the relevant question is: why is it that Jesus is praying only for Peter’s faith? I submit that this has implications for the infallibility and indefectibility of the pope.

I’m not claiming that Jesus didn’t pray for people. What I’m saying is: the fact that Holy Scripture seems to highlight only Peter as one whom Jesus specifically prayed for, must be significant. Jesus said this was at the Last Supper, with all the disciples present. Why does Jesus say this only to Peter, then? That’s the significance. If Peter wasn’t special and the leader, it seems to me that He would have said it to all of them. After all, most of His words at the Last Supper were directed to all of His disciples. In other words, Peter was so important that the NT made it a point to show how Jesus prayed for him to have the strength to perform his ministry.

We can examine, for example, how very few times Jesus prayed for others by name in Holy Scripture. The phrase of Jesus, “I have prayed for you” occurs only here in the New Testament (in RSV). In fact “prayed for” applied to Jesus, meaning intercession for a human being, only appears here also. The word “prayed” referring to Jesus

appears nine times

in the New Testament. The passage above is one of them. Six other times it refers to Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane about His Passion. The remaining two (Mk 1:35; Lk 5:16) refer to Jesus withdrawing alone and praying (no specific subject or object of prayer stated).

We can search “pray” in reference to Jesus

and we find the same general thing: He is praying by Himself for we know not what (Mt 14:23; Mk 6:46; Lk 6:12; 9:18; 11:1), praying at His baptism (Lk 3:21), praying for many children (Mt 19:13), praying in Gethsemane (Mt 26:26; Mk 14:32; Lk 22:45), praying with (not for) Peter, John, and James right before the transfiguration (Lk 9:28-29), praying for the Holy Spirit to be given to believers (Jn 14:16), praying for the disciples as a group (Jn 17:9, 15), and for all Christians to come (Jn 17:20).

That’s the complete record, in terms of searching “pray” /”prayed” / “prayer” in the New Testament (in the RSV). I think it’s also clear that Jesus prayed for Lazarus (John 11:41: “”Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.”) before He raised him (which is, of course, prayer for the dead: something Protestants tell us is heresy and unacceptable practice).

The only other single person that Scripture records Jesus interceding for is Lazarus. The instance with Peter above is the only time we see Him praying for one of His disciples about what he will be tasked to do: to strengthen his brethren. Surely, this is highly significant, and it has to do with a central task of what popes do: they guide, exhort, and strengthen Christian believers.

Peter alone among the apostles was exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen” other Christians:

Luke 22:32b . . . and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

This is what popes do. One can cite the example of St. Paul “strengthening all the disciples” (Acts 18:23; cf. 14:22; 15:41; 16:5; Rom 1:11) and the “prophets” Judas and Silas exhorting and strengthening the “brethren” (Acts 15:32). Of course they do. But it’s no proof that Peter does not do so in a universal sense; over against their local exercise of the spiritual gift of strengthening others. Jesus specifically commissions Peter (just as in the Matthew 16 passages) to play this role among believers in the new Church.

[8]

Peter’s first epistle — in large part, at the very least — reads like a primitive papal encyclical. In one section, he writes to those whom we call today priests or pastors, as follows:

1 Peter 5:1-3 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder . . . [2] Tend the flock of God that is your charge, . . . [3] not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock.

The eminent Protestant Bible scholar J. B. Lightfoot comments on this passage:

St. Peter, giving directions to the elders, claims a place among them. The title ‘fellow-presbyter,’ which he applies to himself, would doubtless recall to the memory of his readers the occasions when he himself had presided with the elders and guided their deliberations. (St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, Lynn, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Pub., 1982, 198; emphasis added)

That’s routine “papal talk.” The pope will often say “fellow bishops” because he is a bishop (of Rome) as well as pope. Paul calls lessers “brethren”

(many many times)

even though they are not on the same level as him. Even Jesus called His disciples “friends” (Jn 15:13-15). Does that mean He isn’t above them? Paul calls Christians “fellow heirs with Christ” (Rom 8:17) and “God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor 3:9), and he calls other Christians “fellow workers” and “fellow soldiers” and “fellow servants”

(see the references).

St. Paul refers to “elders” three times in his encyclicals (1 Tim 4:14; 5:17; Titus 1:5) but doesn’t directly address them en masse, as Peter does. He does, however, address the elders at Ephesus, in Acts:

Acts 20:17, 28-32 And from Mile’tus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. . . . [28] Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son. [29] I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; [30] and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. [31] Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears. [32] And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

We would expect this from an apostle, especially a church-planter like Paul. But this doesn’t change the fact that Peter’s first epistle has a much wider scope: “To the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappado’cia, Asia, and Bithyn’ia,” (1:1), which is characteristic of the universality of a papal encyclical. It suggests a person who has authority over the Church at large.

The New Bible Dictionary (edited by J. D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1962 ed., 973), states that “the address is the widest in the New Testament.” Likewise, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (edited by Allen C. Myers, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1987, 820): “The letter is apparently intended to be a circular document with wide distribution.” The word encyclical comes from the Latin encyclicus and the Greek enkyklios, meaning, literally, “in a circle, general, common, for general circulation.” The word encyclopedia is derived from the same root.

14) Peter’

s first epistle was written from Rome, according to many Protestant scholars. “Babylon” (1 Pet 5:13) is regarded as code for Rome. This is not merely arbitrary Catholic tradition:

The majority of scholars favour Rome as the place of writing, taking ‘Babylon’ as symbolic, in the same sense as in the Apocalypse. The Roman martyrdom of Peter is fairly well attested . . . But the problem arises why Peter resorted to symbolic expression . . . It is probable that the cryptogram was used as a security measure. At the time of writing, Rome was the centre of vicious action against Christianity and avoidance of any mention of the Roman church would be a wise move if the letter fell into official hands. The writer evidently assumed that the readers would have understood the symbolism. [Footnote no. 2 on p. 803] It should be noted here that the metaphorical use of ‘Babylon’ is found in contemporary Jewish pseudegraphical literature and in the Church Fathers. (The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1962 edition, 802-803; cf. p. 974)

The Eerdmans Bible Commentary (edited by D. Guthrie, J. A. Motyer, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 3rd edition, 1970, 1237) concurs:

. . . it would seem likely to have been written before the outburst of persecution at Rome in AD 64 . . . The argument for a Roman origin is based on the fact that in Rev. 16:19, 17:5, etc. Babylon is a cryptic reference to Rome . . . In view of the fact that most of our evidence links both Peter and the letter with Rome, this seems the most reasonable conclusion.

My copy of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible (Oxford University Press, 1977) also has this footnote for 1 Peter 5:13: “Babylon, a cryptic name for Rome . . .” The renowned evangelical Protestant Bible scholar F. F. Bruce also agrees:

As for Peter’s association with the Roman Church, this was not only a claim made from early days at Rome; it was conceded by churchmen from all over the Christian world. In the New Testament it is reflected in the greetings sent to the readers of 1 Peter from the church (literally, from “her”) “that is in Babylon, elect together with you” (1 Pet. 5:13) — if, as is most probable, Babylon is a code-word for Rome . . . [Note 61] Various considerations rule out Babylon on the Euphrates. (Peter, Stephen, James, and John, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1979, 44)

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (edited by F. L. Cross & E. A. Livingstone, Oxford University Press, second edition, 1983, “Peter,” p. 1068) asserts:

The tradition connecting St. Peter with Rome is early and unrivaled . . . Rom. 15.20-22 may point to the presence of another Apostle in Rome before St. Paul wrote, while the identification of ‘Babylon’ in 1 Pet. 5.13 . . . with Rome seems highly probable. . . . St. Ignatius uses words (Rom. 4.2) which suggest that Peter and Paul were Apostles of special authority for the Roman church . . . Others are Gaius of Rome and Dionysius of Corinth, both cited by Eusebius (H.E., II. xxv. 5-8).

See also Eusebius, Church History, 2,15 and the Catholic Answers tract, “Was Peter in Rome?”. Even the thoroughly Protestant Bible Knowledge Commentary

(p. 857)

thinks the “Babylon = Rome” explanation for 1 Peter 5:13 quite plausible. Bible scholar Reinhard Feldmeier takes the same position

(The First Letter of Peter, Baylor University Press, 2008, pp. 41-42). A. T. Robertson, in

Word Pictures in the New Testament

(introduction for 1st Peter) agrees: “

So we can think of Rome as the place of writing and that Peter uses “Babylon” to hide his actual location from Nero.”

In his second epistle is equally as “general” as his first and he indicates that the wide-ranging recipients are the same as in the case of his first letter: “This is now the second letter that I have written to you, beloved, . . .” (3:1).

16-20) Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles. Matthew even calls him the “first” (10:2). Judas Iscariot — while he was alive — was invariably mentioned last (Mt 10:4; Mk 3:19; Lk 6:16):

Matthew 10:1-2 And he called to him his twelve disciples . . . [2] The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, . . .

Mark 3:14, 16 And he appointed twelve, to be with him, . . . [16] Simon whom he surnamed Peter; . . .

Luke 6:13-14 And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles; [14] Simon, whom he named Peter, . . .

Acts 1:13 and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James . . .

Some Protestant commentaries, expressing exegetical opinions about Matthew 10:2, opined that this was not because of primacy or preeminence, but because of being the first disciple called by Jesus. But Peter was not the first one called: Andrew was (Jn 1:37-41). Meyer’s NT Commentary states about Matthew 10:2:

The first is Simon. The further numbering of them ceases, for Matthew mentions them in pairs. The placing of Peter first in all the catalogues of the apostles (Mark 3:16 ff.; Luke 6:14 ff.; Acts 1:13) is not accidental (Fritzsche), . . . This accords with the pre-eminence which he had among the apostles as primus inter pares (Matthew 16:16 ff., Matthew 17:1. Matthew 24:19, Matthew 27:26; Matthew 27:37; Matthew 27:40; Luke 8:45; Luke 9:32; Luke 22:31 f.; John 21:15; Acts 1:15; Acts 2:14; Acts 5:3 f., Matthew 8:14, Matthew 10:5, Matthew 15:7; Galatians 1:18; Galatians 2:7), and which was recognised by Jesus Himself. For that they were arranged in the order of their rank is perfectly obvious, not only from the betrayer being uniformly put last, but also from the fact that in all the catalogues James and John, who along with Peter were the Lord’s most intimate friends, are mentioned immediately after that apostle (and Andrew). (my bolding)

21-38) Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else.

Matthew 17:1 . . . Jesus took with him Peter and James and John . . .

Matthew 26:37 And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zeb’edee . . .

Mark 5:37 And he allowed no one to follow him except Peter and James and John the brother of James.

Mark 9:2 And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart by themselves; and he was transfigured before them,

Mark 13:3 And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,

Mark 14:33 And he took with him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled.

Luke 8:51 And when he came to the house, he permitted no one to enter with him, except Peter and John and James, and the father and mother of the child.

Luke 9:28 . . . he took with him Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray.

Luke 9:32 Now Peter and those who were with him were heavy with sleep, and when they wakened they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him.

Luke 22:8 So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the passover for us, that we may eat it.”

John 20:2 So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, . . .

John 21:2 Simon Peter, Thomas called the Twin, Nathan’a-el of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zeb’edee, and two others of his disciples were together.

Acts 3:1 Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour.

Acts 3:3 Seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, he asked for alms.

Acts 3:11 . . . he clung to Peter and John . . .

Acts 4:13 . . . they saw the boldness of Peter and John . . .

Acts 4:19 . . . Peter and John answered them, . . .

Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Sama’ria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John,

In one example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he (“Cephas”) is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context (e.g., 1:18-19; 2:7-8). In the preceding verses (2:7-8) and ones after (2:11-14), only Peter is referred to. And in ten places in the New Testament (RSV), Peter is listed first whenever he is mentioned along with James and John. Protestant commentators clarify further, what’s going on here:

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges James . . . is named first, because the reference is to a special act of the Church in Jerusalem, of which he was president or Bishop.

Bengel’s Gnomen James . . . is put here first, because he mostly remained at Jerusalem, . . .

Pulpit Commentary James . . . is named first, before even Cephas and John, though not an apostle, as being the leading “elder” (bishop, as such a functionary soon got to be designated) of the Church of Jerusalem; . . .

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers The way in which St. Paul speaks respectively of St. Peter and St. James is in strict accordance with the historical situation. When he is speaking of the general work of the Church (as in the last two verses) St. Peter is mentioned prominently; when the reference is to a public act of the Church of Jerusalem the precedence is given to St. James.

Also, John 20:4 refers to John (by implication) before Peter, but only in the sense of outrunning him, which has no significance for relative importance. John 1:44 is a rare exception: “Now Philip was from Beth-sa’ida, the city of Andrew and Peter.” Another is 1 Corinthians 3:22: “Paul or Apol’los or Cephas”.

39-45) Peter was often spoken of as distinct among disciples and apostles:

Matthew 26:40 And he came to the disciples and found them sleeping; and he said to Peter, “So, could you not watch with me one hour?”

Mark 1:36 And Simon and those who were with him pursued him,

Mark 14:37 And he came and found them sleeping, and he said to Peter, “Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour?”

John 6:8 One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, . . .

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”

Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.”

1 Corinthians 9:5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

46-47) Peter was described as a spokesman for the other apostles, especially at climactic moments:

Mark 8:27-29 And Jesus went on with his disciples, to the villages of Caesare’a Philip’pi; and on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that I am?” [28] And they told him, “John the Baptist; and others say, Eli’jah; and others one of the prophets.” [29] And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.”

Luke 12:41 Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?”

Peter was specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles:

Mark 16:5-7 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed. [6] And he said to them, “Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him. [7] But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you.”

Even John Calvin granted:

One was chief among the apostles, . . . That twelve had one among them to direct all is nothing strange. Nature admits, the human mind requires, that in every meeting, though all are equal in power, there should be one as a kind of moderator to whom the others should look up. There is no senate without a consul, no bench of judges without a president or chancellor, no college without a provost, no company without a master. Thus there would be no absurdity were we to confess that the apostles had conferred such a primacy on Peter. (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, 6:8)

49-50) Paul distinguished the Lord’s post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles:

1 Corinthians 15:3-8 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, [4] that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, [5] and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. [6] Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. [7] Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. [8] Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

The eleven disciples after the resurrection made the same distinction:

Luke 24:34 . . . “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”

Peter’s name is mentioned in the New Testament more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50% of the time we find John in the Bible! Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to! St. Paul’s name appears 184 times (23 of those as Saul): seven fewer times than Peter’s name(s).

Peter asked Jesus about how many times we ought to forgive someone who sins against us:

Matthew 18:21-22 Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” [22] Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.”

53-54) Peter distinguished himself among the disciples as one exceptionally willing to quickly repent of sins:

Matthew 26:74-75 . . . And immediately the cock crowed. [75] And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, “Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly. (cf. Mk 14:72; Lk 22:61-62)

Luke 5:4-8 And when he had ceased speaking, he said to Simon, “Put out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch.” [5] And Simon answered, “Master, we toiled all night and took nothing! But at your word I will let down the nets.” [6] And when they had done this, they enclosed a great shoal of fish; and as their nets were breaking, [7] they beckoned to their partners in the other boat to come and help them. And they came and filled both the boats, so that they began to sink. [8] But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.”

Contrast that with St. Paul, who was persecuting and killing Christians for (seemingly) an extended period of time, and had to be more or less forced by God to repent.

Christ taught from Peter’s boat, and the miraculous catch of fish follows (Lk 5:1-11): perhaps a metaphor for the pope as a “fisher of men” (cf. Mt 4:19). The “bark” (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church, with Peter at the helm:

56-57) Peter was the first and only disciple to assert that he would be willing to die for Jesus’ sake (which he later did):

Luke 22:33 . . . “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.”

John 13:37 . . . ” . . . I will lay down my life for you.”

Peter was the first disciple to confesses Christ’s divinity:

Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Peter alone among the disciples was told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation, after he proclaimed that Jesus was the Messiah and God (16:16):

Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.”

An argument is made against this by asserting that Paul was the first apostle to be taken to heaven to receive a revelation (2 Cor 12:1-4). But this is untrue. It was St. Stephen, who, “full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God” (Acts 7:55), when he was being stoned to death, with Paul’s consent (8:1).

Peter was the first Christian to publicly proclaim in a sermon after Pentecost that Jesus was the Messiah, and indeed, God and Lord:

Acts 2:34-36 For David did not ascend into the heavens; but he himself says, `The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, [35] till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet.’ [36] Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

Peter was the first to inquire about the identity of the one who was to betray Jesus:

John 13:21-24 When Jesus had thus spoken, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, “Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.” [22] The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke. [23] One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved [John], was lying close to the breast of Jesus; [24] so Simon Peter beckoned to him and said, “Tell us who it is of whom he speaks.”

Peter was the first disciple to reaffirm belief in Jesus after other disciples forsook Him:

John 6:66-69 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. [67] Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” [68] Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; [69] and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

Peter was the first disciple to enter the empty tomb of Jesus:

John 20:6 Then Simon Peter came, following him [John], and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying,

John got there first because he could run faster. But what does that have to do with being pope? Now popes have to be the fastest runners at the Olympics? What’s interesting here is how John acted when he got there first. He didn’t go in the tomb. He waited for Peter, who did go in (Jn 20:5-8). After Peter did that, John followed. It seems pretty clear that this is deference to a leader.

Peter was the first disciple to jump into the sea after Jesus, when He appeared after He was risen, in the Sea of Galilee:

John 21:7 That disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his clothes, for he was stripped for work, and sprang into the sea.

Peter was the first disciple to proclaim Jesus’ omniscience:

John 21:17 . . . And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything . . . “

Peter’s words were the first recorded and most important in the upper room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).

Peter took the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:15-26), which is one of the primary proofs of apostolic succession in the Bible.

Peter was the first Christian to publicly proclaim in a sermon in the Church Age after Pentecost that Jesus was the savior (authoritatively applying Joel 2:32 to Jesus):

Acts 2:21 And it shall be that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’ (cf. 2:22-40)

John the Baptist, however (technically not yet a Christian, but the last of the OT-type prophets), had publicly been the first to publicly describe Jesus as the savior and God:

John 1:23, 29, 34 He said, “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, `Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.” . . . [29] The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” . . . [34] “And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”

Peter was the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the gospel” in the first “open air” sermon of the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).

Peter was the first “charismatic”, having judged authoritatively the first instance of the gift of tongues as genuine (Acts 2:14-21).

Peter was the first Christian to publicly proclaim in a sermon that Jesus had risen:

Acts 2:24, 31-32 . . . God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. . . . [31] he [David] foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. [32] This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.

Peter was the first Christian to publicly proclaim the necessity of baptism, which brings about regeneration:

Acts 2:38a And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; . . .

Peter took the lead in the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41).

Peter was the first Christian to publicly proclaim the reception of the indwelling Holy Spirit as a result of baptism:

Acts 2:38b . . . you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the “House of Israel” (2:36): an example of “binding and loosing.”

Peter worked the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man:

Acts 3:6-8 But Peter said, “I have no silver and gold, but I give you what I have; in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.” [7] And he took him by the right hand and raised him up; and immediately his feet and ankles were made strong. [8] And leaping up he stood and walked and entered the temple with them, walking and leaping and praising God.

Peter uttered the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11)!

Peter was regarded by the common people as the leader of Christianity:

Acts 5:15 . . . they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and pallets, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them.

His shadow could work miracles.

Peter was the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).

Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called “visitation of the churches” (Acts 9:32-38, 43). Paul preached at Damascus immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20), but hadn’t traveled there for that purpose (God changed his plans!). His missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2.

Peter was the first person in the Church age after Pentecost to raise the dead. Note how other disciples of Jesus specifically sent for him in order for him to perform the miracle:

Acts 9:36-41 Now there was at Joppa a disciple named Tabitha, which means Dorcas. She was full of good works and acts of charity. [37] In those days she fell sick and died; and when they had washed her, they laid her in an upper room. [38] Since Lydda was near Joppa, the disciples, hearing that Peter was there, sent two men to him entreating him, “Please come to us without delay.” [39] So Peter rose and went with them. And when he had come, they took him to the upper room. All the widows stood beside him weeping, and showing tunics and other garments which Dorcas made while she was with them. [40] But Peter put them all outside and knelt down and prayed; then turning to the body he said, “Tabitha, rise.” And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up. [41] And he gave her his hand and lifted her up. Then calling the saints and widows he presented her alive.

Cornelius was told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6, 32; 11:13).

Peter was the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48). It’s argued that Peter’s purpose was to minister primarily to the Jews. So why, then, did God reveal to him first, that the Gentiles were to come into the Christian community? How very odd that God gave Peter the vision of all foods being clean: an issue that had specifically to do with Gentiles in relation to Jewish law (Acts 10:9-16). Doubly odd that Peter visited and ate with Cornelius and a great many persons and spoke about how Gentiles were now part of God’s plan of salvation (Acts 10:21-43).

And why would Peter travel to Antioch and Rome, if he supposedly was only to evangelize and minister to Jews? Peter was among the eleven disciples that Jesus commissioned to “make disciples of all nations” (Mt 28:19 ff.): thus obviously including Gentiles.

It doesn’t follow from the fact that Paul was concentrated on outreach to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15; 13:46-48; 21:19; Rom 11:13; 15:18; Gal 1:16; Eph 3:1-8, etc.), that Peter didn’t also evangelize them (even primarily so). But right after his conversion, God told Paul that he would also “carry my name before . . . the sons of Israel” (Acts 9:15; cf. 26:20).

Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

Peter instructed the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).

86-87) Peter was the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison – Acts 12:1-17). The whole Church (strongly implied) offers “earnest prayer” for Peter when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5). One anti-Catholic that I came across asserted, “If the papacy is true, then wouldn’t the Jews know that Peter was the leader of Christianity and go after him and “cut off the head”, as it were? Why, instead, go after Paul (Acts 21:28; 23:12)?” Paul as the most active missionary was an obvious target.

But when the same Herod who killed James (Acts 12:2) “saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also (12:3), and he might have been killed, but for divine intervention (12:7-9). In any event, both were eventually martyred by Nero in Rome: Peter more brutally (by crucifixion) than Paul, who was beheaded as a Roman citizen.

Peter presided over and opens the first council of Christianity (led by “apostles and elders”), and lays down principles afterwards accepted by it. After “there had been much debate” at the Jerusalem council (15:7) and “no small dissension and debate” before it (Acts 15:2), Peter rose and spoke (15:7-11). He noted how he was in the forefront of the issue being discussed: “God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe” (15:7) and recommended loosening the Mosaic law in the case of Gentile converts. The text then states that “all the assembly kept silence” (15:12).

Baptist Greek scholar A. T. Robertson’s commented on the latter verse:

Kept silence (esigesen). Ingresive first aorist active of sigao, old verb, to hold one’s piece. All the multitude became silent after Peter’s speech and because of it. (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930, Vol. III, 228)

The bishop of Jerusalem, James, simply agreed with what Peter had said (“Simeon has related . . .”: 15:14) and reiterated it (15:14-21). Peter had provided the substance of the council’s decree. James skipped right over Paul’s (unrecorded) comments and went back to what Peter said. That doesn’t seem consistent with a notion of Paul being “above” or “equal” to Peter in authority. But it’s perfectly consistent with Peter having a preeminent authority. James shows how Peter’s words coincide with Scripture. He doesn’t even mention what Paul said.

Eminent Protestant Bible scholars F. F. Bruce and James D. G. Dunn (Bruce calls himself a “Paulinist”) provide an account of Peter’s role in the Jerusalem Council not inconsistent with mine:

According to Luke, a powerful plea by Peter was specially influential in the achieving of this resolution . . . James the Just, who summed up the sense of the meeting, took his cue from Peter’s plea. (Peter, Stephen, James, and John, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1979, 38)

Paul . . . made no attempt to throw his own weight around within the Jerusalem church (Acts 21; cf. 15.12f.). The compromise, however, is not so much between Peter and Paul . . . as between James and Paul, with Peter in effect the median figure to whom both are subtly conformed (James — see acts 15.13ff. . . . ). Is this not justifiably to be designated ‘early catholic’? (Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, London: SCM Press, 2nd edition, 1990, 112, 356)

We certainly wouldn’t expect to see a full-blown papacy at this very early stage, because the doctrine developed, just as every other one did (all taking hundreds of years) — it was the same with bishops and the canon of the Bible and even the Holy Trinity — , but what we see here is perfectly compatible with the seeds or kernels of the later fully developed papacy.

Peter’s decision at the Jerusalem council was infallible, since the text says, “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (15:28).

The decree by Peter at this council was proclaimed far and wide by St. Paul (Acts 16:1-8): in the areas all the way from Jerusalem, across western Syria and Asia Minor (Turkey) to Greece. It’s 1779 miles from Jerusalem to Athens:

Acts 16:4 As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.

Paul and Barnabas had been “appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders” (15:2). Their words there aren’t even recorded, but we know that they “declared all that God had done with them” (15:4) and “related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles” (15:12).

92-93) In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf. 9:17). He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18), and fourteen years later (Gal 2:1) was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (“when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship”: Gal 2:9). He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4), after its members had been directed by the Holy Spirit to do so (13:2). It was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27). Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28). The Jerusalem Council, which was conducted not only by “apostles” but by “elders” as well, sent Paul to Antioch and Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:22-25, 30). St. Paul was an extraordinary and singular apostle. But he was neither a “lone ranger” nor anything near the head of the universal Church. When Peter was “sent” to Samaria it was by other “apostles” (Acts 8:14).

Peter interpreted prophecy (2 Pet 1:16-21).

Peter corrected those who misuse Paul’s writings (2 Pet 3:15-16).

96-98) The office of the papacy, apart from all of the many actions and descriptions in the Bible that show that Peter was the leader of the Church, simply flows from the office of bishop (Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-2; Titus 1:7, and in Greek, episkopos, translated differently in RSV, also in Acts 1:20; 20:28). See the

usage of “elder” (presbyteros)

in the Bible, from Acts to 3 John. Peter calls himself a “fellow elder” in 1 Peter 5:1, and he calls God a “bishop” in 1 Peter 1:25. In Acts, Paul calls elders “overseers” (episkopos):

Acts 20:17, 28 And from Mile’tus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders [presbyteros] of the church. . . . [28] Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers [episkopos], to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.

Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (one-volume edition) notes that:

In Acts 14:23 Paul and Barnabas ordain elders in the Gentile churches [“they had appointed elders for them in every church”]. The address of 20:18ff. shows that they are to be overseers and pastors administering the apostles’ legacy, following their example and protecting the people against error. The designation of the elders as bishops in 20:28 . . . is of special interest. . . .

Titus is to ordain presbyteroi (1:5) [“appoint elders in every town as I directed you”] . . . The bishops and presbyters seem to be much the same (cf. Tit. 1:5, 7ff.). Yet the bishop is always in the singular and the presbyters are always plural. (p. 933)

St. Peter, then, in light of all of his leadership and teaching qualities, as massively evidenced in Holy Scripture, is a “super-bishop”: that is, the first pope. Paul and Titus also act in “pope-like ways” when they appoint elders in various churches, who essentially function as what we know to be bishops. Popes appoint bishops. All of this shows that an office of the papacy is quite biblical, and popes have successors, just as Paul, analogously, appoints a bishop, Timothy, as his successor (in conjunction with a “council of elders” that ordained him):

1 Timothy 1:1-4, 12, 18-19 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, [2] To Timothy, my true child in the faith: . . . [3] . . . remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, [4] nor to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies which promote speculations rather than the divine training that is in faith; . . . [12] Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful by appointing me to his service, . . . [18] This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare, [19] holding faith and a good conscience. . . .

1 Timothy 4:6, 11-16 If you put these instructions before the brethren, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the good doctrine which you have followed. . . . [11] Command and teach these things. [12] Let no one despise your youth, but set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. [13] Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. [14] Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you.
[15] Practice these duties, devote yourself to them, so that all may see your progress. [16] Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

1 Timothy 6:12, 20 Fight the good fight of the faith; . . . [20] O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you.

2 Timothy 1:2, 6, 11-14 To Timothy, my beloved child: . . . [6] . . . I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands; . . . [11] For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher, [12] and therefore I suffer as I do. But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am sure that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me. [13] Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; [14] guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

2 Timothy 2:1-2, 15, 24-26 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, [2] and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. . . . [15] Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. . . . [24] And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, [25] correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth,
[26] and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

2 Timothy 4:1-2, 5 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: [2] preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. . . . [5] . . . always be steady, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil your ministry.

Paul mentions Linus, considered by early Christian patristic tradition to be the second pope:

2 Timothy 4:21 Do your best to come before winter. Eubu’lus sends greetings to you, as do Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brethren.

And he mentions the third Pope, Clement:

Philippians 4:3 And I ask you also, true yokefellow, help these women, for they have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life. [9]

St. Jerome (c. 343-420) alludes to Clement and Linus being among the first four popes

(De Viris Illustribus,

sections 5, 15) [10], and stated that Peter had been the bishop of Rome “for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero” (De Viris Illustribus, section 1)

[12] St. Irenaeus (130-202) writing around 175-180 AD, stated that Clement and Linus were among the first three successor of Peter to the papacy (Against Heresies, Bk III, 3, 3; cited in Eusebius, EH, Bk V, 6, 1-5) [11].

Tertullian

(c. 160-c. 225) in c. 200 refers to “the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter” (

Prescription against Heretics, 32). [11] St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his Epistle to the Romans (c. 110) wrote, “I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man . . .” (ch. 4) Paul wrote to the Romans, but Peter didn’t, as far as we know; so it’s plausible to assume that he is referring to him being an authority in Rome.

Gaius, or Caius of Rome [link], writing around 200 in his dispute with Montanist leader Proclus, stated, “I can show the trophies of the Apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church”. Dionysius of Corinth [link], whom we know to have been bishop around 171, in his seventh letter to the Romans, referred to “the Romans and Corinthians who are the planting of Peter and Paul. For they both came to our Corinth and planted us, and taught alike; and alike going to Italy and teaching there, were martyred at the same time.” Both of these men were cited by Eusebius (HE., II. xxv. 5-8).

Renowned Protestant Church historian, Philip Schaff, no cheerleader for Catholicism, in his famous History of the Christian Church, Vol. II: Ante-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 100-325 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, rep. 1976 from 1910 edition, 157-158), writes remarkably of St. Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Romans:

The first example of the exercise of a sort of papal authority is found towards the close of the first century in the letter of the Roman bishop Clement (d. 102) to the bereaved and distracted church of Corinth . . . it can hardly be denied that the document reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked (as far as appears), gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important Church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome.

Yet Baptist Gavin Ortlund, in his contra-papacy video cited in the introduction, stated:

4:56 It’s reasonable to expect that if there was this supreme office over the church, it’d probably come up somewhere. If not in the New Testament, at least in the surrounding literature, outside of the New Testament in the first century and then going into the second century, somewhere you’re going to get an echo of this. You’re going to get some consequence from this if it’s actually true historically that there is a Petrine office over the church.

The “echo” he is demanding occurs in Irenaeus in 180 AD, Dionysius of Corinth, c. 171, Tertullian and Gaius of Rome around 200, and plausibly in Ignatius around 110, as well as in Clement’s remarkably “papal-like” letter from (most likely), c. 96. And we have the later but very important data from Eusebius. Gavin’s degree is in historical theology. Yet somehow he missed all this (especially these very well known “succession” themes in Irenaeus), or forgot about it if he ever learned about it . . .

Eusebius (c. 260/265-339), the first great Church historian, states that Linus succeeded Peter as pope (EH, Bk III, 2, 1; cf. III, 4, 9). In Bk III, ch. 13, Eusebius says that Linus was bishop for twelve years, and that Clement was among the first four, and reigned for nine years (EH, Bk III, 4, 10; Bk III, 15, 1; Bk III, 21, 1-3; Bk III, 34, 1). Epiphanius (c. 315-403) wrote that the second third, and fourth popes were “Linus and Cletus, Clement” (Panarion 27.6.6-7). [12] See additional patristic evidence for Peter serving as the first bishop (and pope) of Rome and being martyred there. [12]

In the early Church, the offices were often fluid and overlapping. Accordingly, Paul often referred to himself as a deacon [diakonos] (1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6; 6:4; 11:23; Eph 3:7; Col 1:23, 25), yet no one would assert that he was merely a deacon, and nothing else. Judas was called an episkopos in Acts 1:20, and so was, likewise, his successor, Matthias: which is one of the major biblical proofs of apostolic succession. In the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, “apostles and elders” (stated repeatedly) work together jointly: thus exhibiting the notion of bishops as the successors of the apostles.

Even Jesus called Himself a deacon:

Mark 10:45 For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve [diakonoeo], and to give his life as a ransom for many. (cf. same usage in Mt 20:28)

Luke 22:27 . . . I am among you as one who serves [diakonoeo].

Likewise, Jesus taught that the leader of the Church would be a “deacon” or servant, following His own example:

Luke 22:25-26 And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. [26] But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves [diakonoeo].

Paul taught that a bishop must not “be puffed up with conceit” (1 Tim 3:6) and “must not be arrogant” (Titus 1:7). This was part of his general teaching that all should “in humility count others better than yourselves” (Phil 2:3), and Peter’s that Christians should act “with humility toward one another, for ‘God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble’. Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that in due time he may exalt you” (1 Pet 5:5-6; the OT citation also appears in Jas 4:6). Peter also wrote that “all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind” (1 Pet 3:8). Jesus is described in the NT as humble (Phil 2:8).

Hence, Peter refers to himself in humility as a “fellow elder” in 1 Peter 5:1. That is not in the least a disproof that he was the leader and the pope. It was following Jesus’ example as a humble servant of all. This is the biblical notion of a Church leader.

It’s argued that Paul places himself on the level of Peter when he wrote, “I am not in the least inferior to these superlative apostles” (2 Cor 11:5; “superlative” being sarcastic). This whole passage, however, is tongue-in-cheek and sarcastic. He speaks of the deliberate “foolishness” of his rhetorical remarks in 11:1, 16-17, 19, 21, and even continues to tongue-in-cheek self-abasing “fool” motif in 12:6, 11. In 11:4 he refers to those proclaiming “another Jesus.” These are the people he is comparing himself to. In 11:13 he refers to these people who are leading the Corinthians astray as “false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.” Needless to say, this passage has nothing whatsoever to do with St. Peter, unless those who desperately utilize it wish to assert that Peter is Satan in disguise (11:14) or one of his servants in “disguise” (11:15).

100-103) It’s often argued that Paul’s sharp rebuke of Peter undermined any possible papal authority of the latter. But Peter and Paul didn’t disagree on the inclusion of the Gentiles into the Christian community. This wasn’t a doctrinal difference. Peter was rebuked for hypocritical practices. This has no bearing on his office, nor Paul’s position relative to it. In Galatians 2:11-14, one sees the word “hypocrisy” or “insincerity” or “dissimulation,” according to various translations (NRSV, RSV, and KJV, respectively).

The word “dissimulation” in Gal 2:13 in the KJV is the Greek hupokrisis (Strong’s word #5272) – from which is derived the English “hypocrisy.” It is translated as “hypocrisy” in the KJV at Mt 23:28; Mk 12:15; Lk 12:1; 1 Tim 4:2; 1 Pet 2:1. The cognate hupokritees is often applied by Jesus to the Pharisees (e.g., Mt 6:2, 5, 16; 7:5; 15:7, 16:3; 22:18; 23:13-15, 23, 25, 27, 29; Mk 7:6; Lk 11:44). We all know what “hypocrite” means. This is what Peter was rebuked by Paul for. This is a common human weakness that Paul actually rebuked himself for, too:

Romans 7:14-15, 18-19, 22-24 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. [15] I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. . . . [18] For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. [19] For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. . . . [22] For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, [23] but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. [24] Wretched man that I am! . . .

Paul also described himself (in the present, not past tense): “I am the foremost of sinners” (1 Tim 1:15) and wrote, “I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God” (1 Cor 15:9). So if Peter can’t be a pope because he was being a hypocrite when Paul rebuked him, neither can Paul be an apostle, since he just as forcefully rebuked his own two-faced hypocrisy and exceptional sinfulness in two of his epistles that would be read by millions.

Moses and David were murderers, like Paul was (Peter never committed that grave sin), but didn’t lose their authority as a result. Jesus even upheld the authority of the Pharisees, notwithstanding their hypocrisy: “practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice” (Mt 23:3). Paul also highly respected the authority of the high priest, who wasn’t even a Christian, and had him struck at his trial (Acts 23:1-5).

Therefore, this anti-papal argument collapses by linguistics, cross-referencing, and reductio ad absurdum.

Some have argued that John being referred to as “the beloved disciple” suggests “a papal primacy” of St. John. But this doesn’t fly because this was John’s description of himself. It was a form of humility, in referring to himself, in his Gospel (John 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20). I’m pretty that no one else in the Bible referred to him in that fashion.

A similar argument is that only St. John called himself “the elder” (i.e., singular, not plural). But that’s a non-starter because

all other instances of “elders”

are from a group / second-person perspective, whereas John is again referring only to himself (2 Jn 1:1; 3 Jn 1:1). He can hardly say, “The elders to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth, . . ” since he is identifying himself at the beginning of his letter, as was customary.

It’s argued that St. Paul singles himself out as the standard of orthodoxy (1 Cor 14:37), over against Peter, since he stated that “If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.” But this argument fails to understand that the entire New Testament is the inspired, God-breathed Word of the Lord (as is the OT). Hence, the other NT writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the author of Hebrews, James, and Peter) are writing equally inspired words from God. And most of them are apostles, too, which is Paul’s basis for making his non-exclusive claim.

Contra-papal / Petrine arguments are so desperate that they even stoop to asserting that the demons didn’t recognize Peter. Seeing the passage in context nullifies this absurd ploy:

Acts 19:11-13, 15 And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, [12] so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them. [13] Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook to pronounce the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, “I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches.” . . . [15] But the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?”

The context of Paul being named was Paul’s handkerchiefs healing folks and casting demons out of them. The Jewish exorcists specifically mention Jesus and Paul. Therefore, the demon answered and said, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know”. It doesn’t follow (in any sense) that they would never mention (or “recognize”) Peter in another context, or that Paul is therefore above Peter, simply because Paul was mentioned in this instance and the demon recognized his name. Nothing is proven by this example.

Here’s another pseudo-argument that was made in an anti-Catholic venue (where my replies, incidentally, were censored and deleted): “Why were the Zebedee brothers asking if they could be Jesus’ right-hand and left-hand men (Mt 20:20ff) if Jesus already made it clear that Peter was to be the Pope in Matt. 16? Why wouldn’t the Gospel writers correct their misunderstanding and state that Peter was Pope?”

I reply that the disciples didn’t understand a lot of things, including the necessity of the crucifixion, and that Jesus would rise from the dead (even though He told them repeatedly that they would happen, and arguably made it quite “clear”). Peter likely didn’t know or fully what Jesus meant, himself, when he was being commissioned in Matthew 16. But after he received the Holy Spirit, he did, as seen in his behavior. So why would this person think that they would fully understand this? They were so dense they were concerned about being the “greatest.” It’s an unreasonable demand that has no force. The Gospel writers need not spell out everything in declarative statements. They teach mostly by example.

Some critics of the papacy attempt to discredit Peter due to his tempestuous personality. What these critics miss, is that this is not primarily about personality, but rather, about the will. It’s a fine Christian quality to have a willingness to serve the Lord without hesitation: (Mt 10:37-38; Lk 9:59-62; Rom 12:11; 1 Pet 3:13; 2 Pet 1:10; 3:14; Rev 3:19). Peter responded first so often because he had more zeal, and that is a great trait for a Christian believer and disciples of Jesus to have, along with similar traits like being firm, having a strong faith, and being steadfast and persevering and having endurance. Peter is consistently presented as prevailing and being the leader and first to do things.

Wavering people (another trait of St. Peter) who were also zealous and extraordinary leaders of the faith and chosen by God are not unusual; in fact, it might be said to be the norm. Abraham lied about his sister, Moses murdered a man, and seemed to have quite a temper (striking the rock for water a second time, etc.). Saul and Solomon fell away from the faith (yet Solomon built God’s temple); King David famously had a man killed so he could take his wife. It didn’t stop God from making an eternal covenant with him, and making him a prototype of the Messiah Jesus (who was called “Son of David”). St. Paul persecuted Christians. Thomas doubted that Jesus had risen from the dead. Peter could be overzealous, precisely because he was zealous in the first place. So he wound up being rebuked by Jesus and denying him three times. But he repented. God chose similar hotheads and “uneven” people like Moses, Samson, David, Jonah, Elijah, and Paul.

Peter is disparaged by the citation of Jesus saying to him, “O man of little faith, why did you doubt?” (Mt 4:31). This was when he was walking on the water and became afraid and began to sink. But what’s neglected is that Peter was the only one who had faith enough to even try (14:28-29). All of the disciples doubted at one time or another. This was before they had received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Only one, John, was present at the crucifixion. “Then all the disciples forsook him and fled” (Mt 26:56; cf. Mk 14:50), “You will all fall away because of me this night; for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered’” (Mt 26:31; cf. Mk 14:27). After they were Spirit-filled, it was a completely different story, and ten of the eleven disciples (minus Judas) died as glorious martyrs.

Peter is blasted because Jesus said to him, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men” (Mt 16:23). Peter, before he had the Holy Spirit, was understandably concerned about Jesus talking about going to Jerusalem and being killed. He had little understanding about the Messiah having to die for the sins of the world. Once he did, after the Resurrection and Pentecost, then he was a bold and fearless leader. We could have a field day pointing out the many sins of anyone before they committed themselves to Jesus as a disciple. We need only look as far as St. Paul, for starters. He recalled later in his life: “I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering to prison both men and women,” (Acts 22:4; cf. 9:4; 22:7; 26:11, 14; Gal 1:13, 23; 1 Tim 1:13). But Paul wrote: “I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief” (1 Tim 1:13).

If we’re gonna run down the past sins of apostles, then we should apply this “indignation” equally to Paul. After all, it takes a lot more sinful will to decide to persecute Christians and kill them for the crime of believing that Jesus was Lord and Messiah, than to lose courage in a moment of fear for one’s life, and deny Jesus as a result. Peter immediately repented upon hearing the cock crow (Mt 26:75; Lk 22:62). His sin and moment of weakness — due to a rational fear for his life in that terrible circumstance — literally lasted just a few minutes. But Paul’s sins went on for some time, and he was so stubborn that he had to be knocked to the ground and more or less forced to convert to Christ. We need to keep things in perspective.

One anti-Catholic apologist falsely claimed, “It is not Peter who is indicated as being the “ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes”” (Acts 24:5), but Paul.” But RSV has “a ringleader” as opposed to “the ringleader.” How much difference one little word makes! In fact, only one out of about

60 English translations of Acts 24:5

that I consulted has “the ringleader.” So this hardly bolsters a case that Paul was regarded as the top leader.

An anti-Catholic apologist asserted, “Peter, in writing his two well-known epistles, never identified himself with the terms the Catholic Church assigns to him: pope, prince of apostles, chief, head, bishop of bishops – these are all terms totally unknown to Peter. Peter is not indicated as being the Supreme Pontiff on earth, as this title was only given to him later by the Catholic Church.” Paul never called himself an “evangelist” either, even though he was the greatest evangelist of all time, and he

uses the word three times.

Does it follow that he is not an evangelist? Jesus never called Himself “God” or “God the Son.” God never calls Himself God the Father in the Bible, even though He is

called this name by others many times.

Does it follow, then, that He ought not be called “God the Father”?

115) It’s said that Paul had authority of the name of Jesus Christ to cast out an evil spirit (Acts 16:18), but that Peter didn’t have such authority.

This is untrue. All twelve disciples had that power (Lk 9:1). So did the seventy evangelists appointed by Jesus (Lk 10:17, 20). Luke was also the author of Acts.

It’s argued that Paul baptized the most people recorded in the Bible (Acts 16:33; 1 Cor 1:16; Acts 19:5; Acts 18:8, etc.). Let’s see: that’s the Philippian jailer and his family, Crispus, the ruler of a synagogue, “some disciples” of John the Baptist, Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas. But St. Peter was responsible for 3,000 baptisms in one day (Acts 2:38-41), as well as Cornelius with “his kinsmen and close friends” (Acts 10:24, 45-48).

An anti-Catholic Protestant apologist asserted that “Paul claims that it was he (not Peter) who laid the foundation for the church (1 Cor. 3:10).” In context, this is clearly referring to Paul laying the foundation for the local Corinthian church (1 Cor 2:1-5; Acts 18:1-11), not the Church universal. Besides, if Paul had laid the foundation of the universal, Catholic Church, then it didn’t even exist on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit started indwelling all Christians and when 3,000 persons were baptized and “added” to the Church (Acts 2). Paul was still killing Christians in those days. So this entire notion is utterly absurd and false. It’s embarrassing to me as an apologist to have to take time to refute such a silly, vacuous argument. But we see how weak this case is. It’s a prime example of desperate “anti-Petrine” polemics.

The same misguided person claimed, “The word which the Thessalonians received from Paul ‘was not the word of men, but as it truly is, the word of God’ (1 Thess 2:13). In no other apostle do we see a statement like this!” Nonsense. John the Baptist wasn’t even an apostle, and the Bible says, “the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness” (Lk 3:2). A whole room full of people in Jerusalem “were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness” (Acts 4:31). Christian leaders spoke “the word of God” (Heb 13:7). Peter told believers in five different areas: “You have been born anew, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God” (1 Pet 1:23). St. John said “the word of God abides in” young Christian men (1 Jn 2:14). But the real “fun” for Protestants comes in realizing that “word of God” in 1 Thessalonians 2:13 is not even the Bible, but rather, oral teaching.

The same apologist and polemicist wrote, “Paul writes to Philemon directly from Rome in AD 60, where Peter is supposed to have been. However, Paul cites four companions with him in Rome. They are: (1) Epaphras, (2) Mark, (3) Aristarchus, (4) Demas, and (5) Luke. At no point does Paul quote Peter in Rome! Peter was not there. If he was, his presence would be indispensable (Phil.1:23-25).”

Epaphras was his “fellow prisoner” (1:23), and Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, his “fellow workers” (1:24) and “companions.” They all sent “greetings” (1:23). This has nothing to do one way or another with whether Peter was there. This was standard practice for Paul at the end of his letters. It’s almost always the people who are “with” him (see Rom 16:21-23; 1 Cor 16:19-20; 2 Cor 13:13; Phil 4:21-22; Col 4:10-14; 2 Tim 4:21; Titus 3:15). Moreover, it would obviously have been dangerous for Peter to visit Paul in prison. Or he may have also been “underground” and Paul didn’t want to reveal that he was there by mentioning him.

The fully developed theory and reality of papal infallibility cannot be “proven” — it is a matter of faith. But the principles behind it can be. One argument that can be used is the analogy of prophets as infallible, and even inspired, individuals. Here is the nutshell version:

“If prophets spoke with inspiration, then popes can plausibly speak infallibly, since the latter is a far less extraordinary gift than the former.” Or, from a different angle: “if those with lesser gifts can do the great thing (inspired utterance), then those with greater gifts can certainly do the lesser thing (infallible utterance).”

The prophets received their inspiration by the Holy Spirit (Num 11:29; 2 Chr 24:20; Neh 9:30; Ezek 3:24; 11:5; Zech 7:12; Acts 28:25; 2 Pet 1:21). The Holy Spirit (as a result of the New Covenant) is now given to all Christians (Jn 15:26; 1 Cor 3:16), so it is perfectly possible and plausible that an even greater measure of the Holy Spirit would be given to leaders of the Church who have the responsibility to teach, since James wrote: “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness” (Jas 3:1). The disciples were reassured by Jesus: “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth” (Jn 16:13; cf. 8:32), so surely it makes sense that shepherds of the Christian flock would be given an extra measure of protection in order to better fulfill their duties.

[13]

There were prophets in the Old Testament who spoke the Word of the Lord, which was not only infallible, but inspired, too, because that was straight from God. This is undoubtedly true of the prophecies that are now recorded in inspired Scripture. It takes much more faith to believe in the inspiration of Scripture (that the huge amount of words in the Bible are not self-contradictory and are all “God-breathed”) than infallibility in limited circumstances, so that if one is believed, the other should not be all that difficult to accept in faith.

God had to use lousy sinners such as Moses and David and Paul and Peter and Matthew to write the Bible. What else did He have: except for a few recorded words from sinless Mary? Thus, sin and the foibles and follies of men are no barrier to Him if He has some purpose (He even used a donkey once). Protestants forget that these inspired words in Scripture were written by very human and sinful men, as we all are. They came from men, just as papal decrees come from men. The real root of the error, I believe, is in the sola Scriptura mentality, which holds (with no biblical support) that only the Bible is infallible and that no human institutions (Church, popes, councils) can be, because only the Bible is, because the Bible says so (but in fact it never does, and it states the contrary). That is where the root error and self-defeating, circular reasoning lies.

Bibliography / Footnotes

1) Peter the Rock: Only a Catholic View? (vs. James White) [Includes Documentation of 14 Church Fathers Who Thought Peter Was the Rock] [5-11-24]

2) Can Christ & Peter Both be “Rocks”? [4-21-22]

3) No Papacy in the NT? Think Again (vs. Jason Engwer). With Special Emphasis on the Protestant Exegesis of “The keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:19) [8-1-22]

4) Jewish Encyclopedia (1906), “Binding and Loosing”.

The Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, James Strong and John McClintock (1880),

“Bind.”

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1939),

“Shebna.”

7) John 21:15-17: Jesus Tells Peter to “Tend My Sheep” [4-30-25]

8) Luke 22:32: “I Have Prayed for [Peter]” + Indefectibility [4-30-25]

9) Pope St. Clement of Rome & Papal Authority [7-28-21]

10) St. Jerome, Papacy, & Succession (vs. Gavin Ortlund) [1-20-24]

11) Monarchical Bishops (Early Fathers & Eusebius) [1-29-24]

12)

Peter the Pope: Early Patristic Evidence [5-22-24]

13) Papacy & OT Infallible Prophets Analogy (vs. Gavin Ortlund) [3-14-24]

***

Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become a Catholic or to return to the Catholic Church, or better understand some doctrines and why Catholics believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.

You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis, in partnership with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!

***

Photo credit: Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter (c. 1482) by Pietro Perugino (1448-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: I submit 120 biblical arguments in favor of the papacy and papal succession, that I have painstakingly developed in 35 years of writing as a Catholic apologist (the last 29 online).

Papacy & Infallibility

Previous Post

October 18, 2025

The Three Most UnProtestant Bible Verses (Transcript)