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 Papal Office: 130 One-Sentence Proofs

St. Peter & the Papal Office: 130 One-Sentence Proofs

Last updated on: October 31, 2025 at 10:17 am by Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

St. Peter & the Papal Office: 130 One-Sentence Proofs 2025-10-31T10:17:59-04:00 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.

Photo credit: Delivery of Keys to Saint Peter (c. 1525), by Vincenzo Catena (1470-1531) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

This is a shorter version (about 42% as long) — using a different method, with each entry being one sentence, and the main ideas bolded — of my 15,000-word article, St. Peter the First Pope: 120 Bible Proofs (10-22-25), which collected 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, and that the papacy was an ongoing office with succession. It was a substantial, significant revision and expansion of my well-known 1994 article, “50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy & the Papacy”.

In the other article some points were multi-faceted and complex, so I split them up here, and on the other hand, a Bible verse counted as an entry, which will not be the case here, since (mostly) Bible verse numbers only will be listed. Many full Bible passages can be viewed in the larger paper. This accounts for the different total number of proofs. All scholars briefly cited by name are Protestants.

*****

1) Peter — not merely his confession — is the “Rock” upon which His Church was built, according to Jesus (Mt 16:18; Jn 1:42), since in the metaphor Jesus is the architect, not the foundation, and this is the view of thirty well-known Protestant scholars I have found, including R. T. France, D. A. Carson, Marvin Vincent, Henry Alford, Herman N. Ridderbos, Albert Barnes, Carl Friedrich Keil, Gerhard Kittel, Oscar Cullmann, Craig L. Blomberg, and Philip Schaff, as well as at least eighteen Church fathers.

2) It’s claimed that Jesus is exclusively “the rock”: not Peter. But the Bible makes it clear that others can be “rocks” or “stones” too (Eph 2:19-22; 1 Pet 2:5; Rev 21:14) and that the foundation of the Church consists not only of our Lord Jesus Christ, but also “apostles and prophets”: and Peter was an apostle.

3) 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).

4) Jesus gave only to Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 16:19), which hearkened back to Isaiah 22:22 (cf. 1 Kgs 4:1-2, 6; 16:8-9; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:1, 5), and involved “a daunting degree of authority” as “the steward, who regulates its [the Church’s] administration” (R. T. France), “chief steward” (F. F. Bruce), “God’s vicegerent” who has the “authority to declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community” and whose “decisions will be confirmed by God” (T.W. Manson), the “prime minister” or “chief rabbi” in the Church (Craig S. Keener).

5) The majordomo, which was the office in Isaiah 22 related to “keys of the kingdom”, the chief steward of the king’s household, had succession (Is 22:15, 19-22).

6) The majordomo was analogous to Joseph’s position in Egypt under the Pharaoh (Gen 41:39-44): sometimes called vizier; the Pharaoh told Joseph that “you shall be over my house” (Gen 41:40) and “I have set you over all the land of Egypt (41:41).

7) Peter’s “keys” were symbolic of his high office, in a way similar to how Joseph’s “signet ring” and “gold chain” were symbols of his position, second only to Pharaoh (Gen 41:42).

8) The New Testament continues the “steward” 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), and a “bishop” was “God’s steward” (Titus 1:7).

9) Peter is given (Mt 16:19), along with the other disciples (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23), the power to “bind” and “loose”: rabbinical terms representing legislative and judicial powers; but Peter is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in a singular sense, rather than as merely one of a collective, making him — in terms of the biblical “method” — preeminent.

10) Peter was regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (Jn 21:15-17: “Feed my lambs”; “Tend my sheep”; “Feed my sheep”), singularly by name, and over the universal Church — again, not just as part of a collective group –, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2); nine Church fathers — including Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, and Chrysostom — who regarded John 21 as a “papal” passage.

11) The Greek word for “tend” in John 21:16 is poimaino, which is applied to Jesus Christ in Revelation 2:27; 7:17; 12:5; 19:15 and also in Matthew 2:6. It is used of bishops in Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:2.

12) The devil seems to have specifically targeted Peter, according to Jesus (Lk 22:31), precisely — I submit — because he was the leader of the Church (cf. Mk 14:27: “You will all fall away; for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered'”), which caused Jesus in the next verse to mention this as something that He prayed for.

13) Peter alone among the disciples — or anyone else — was mentioned by name at the Last Supper as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32), even though other disciples all had instances of failed faith, and only one of them, John, was present at the crucifixion, and “Doubting Thomas” is an obvious example; so it seems that Jesus is praying only for Peter’s faith because of its implications for the infallibility and indefectibility of the pope.

14) Peter was special and the leader, which is why Jesus didn’t say He was praying for all of them, that their faith wouldn’t fail (Lk 22:32): amidst all of His words at the Last Supper that were directed to all of His disciples.

15) The phrase of Jesus, “I have prayed for you” (Lk 22:32) occurs only here in the New Testament (in RSV), and in fact “prayed for” applied to Jesus, meaning intercession for a human being, only appears here also.

16) It’s the only time we see Jesus praying for one of His disciples about what he will be tasked to do: to strengthen his brethren (Lk 22:32), which is a central task of what popes do: they guide, exhort, and strengthen Christian believers; Jesus specifically commissions Peter (just as in the Matthew 16 passages) to play this role in a universal sense with regard to believers in the new Church.

17) Peter’s first epistle is like a primitive papal encyclical, and is written to a very broad audience, very unlike Paul’s epistles to congregations or individuals. The New Bible Dictionary (1962, 973), states that “the address is the widest in the New Testament.” Likewise, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (1987, 820): “The letter is apparently intended to be a circular document with wide distribution.”

18) Peter calls himself a “fellow elder” (1 Pet 5:1), but Paul calls lessers “brethren” even though they are not on the same level as him, “fellow heirs with Christ” (Rom 8:17) and “God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor 3:9), and Jesus called His disciples “friends” (Jn 15:13-15).

19) Peter’s first epistle was written from Rome, since “Babylon” (1 Pet 5:13) is widely regarded as code for Rome; accordingly, New Bible Dictionary (1962, 802-803), “The majority of scholars favour Rome as the place of writing, taking ‘Babylon’ as symbolic, . . . metaphorical use of ‘Babylon’ is found in contemporary Jewish pseudegraphical literature and in the Church Fathers”; and The Eerdmans Bible Commentary (1970, 1237) concurs: “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”; and F. F. Bruce: “as is most probable, Babylon is a code-word for Rome . . . Various considerations rule out Babylon on the Euphrates” (Peter, Stephen, James, and John, 1979, 44); so does A. T. Robertson, in Word Pictures in the New Testament (introduction for 1st Peter) : “So we can think of Rome as the place of writing and that Peter uses “Babylon” to hide his actual location from Nero.”

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

21) Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:1-2; Mk 3:14, 16; Lk 6:13-14; Acts 1:13) and Matthew even calls him the “first”; Judas Iscariot — while he was alive — was invariably mentioned last (Mt 10:4; Mk 3:19; Lk 6:16); moreover, Meyer’s NT Commentary states about Matthew 10:2: “The placing of Peter first in all the catalogues of the apostles . . . is not accidental . . . This accords with the pre-eminence which he had among the apostles as primus inter pares . . ., and which was recognised by Jesus Himself.”

22) Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else (Mt 17:1; 26:37; Mk 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33; Le 8:51; 9:28, 32; 22:8; Jn 20:2; 21:2; Acts 3:1, 3, 11; 4:13, 19; 8:14).

23) In one example to the contrary of the “rule” noted in #22, Galatians 2:9, where “Cephas” is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context (e.g., 1:18-19; 2:7-8), and in the preceding verses (2:7-8) and ones after (2:11-14), only Peter is referred to; 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.

24) I could find only two rare exceptions to these “lists”: John 1:44: “Now Philip was from Beth-sa’ida, the city of Andrew and Peter” and 1 Corinthians 3:22: “Paul or Apol’los or Cephas”.

25) In ten places in the New Testament (RSV), Peter is listed first when he is mentioned along with James and John.

26) Peter was often spoken of as distinct among disciples and apostles (Mt 26:40; Mk 1:36; 14:37; Jn 6:8; Acts 2:37; 5:29; 1 Cor 9:5).

27) Peter was described as the spokesman for the other apostles, especially at climactic moments (Mk 8:27-29; Lk 12:41).

28) Peter was specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:5-7), and even John Calvin granted: “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” (Inst., Book IV, 6:8).

29) Paul distinguished the Lord’s post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles (1 Cor 15:3-8), as did the eleven disciples after the resurrection (Lk 24:34).

30) 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; Peter is named about 60% of the time any disciple is referred to!

31) St. Paul’s name appears in the NT 184 times (23 of those as Saul): seven fewer times than Peter.

32) Peter asked Jesus about how many times we ought to forgive someone who sins against us (Mt 18:21-22).

33) Peter distinguished himself among the disciples as one exceptionally willing to quickly repent of sins (Mt 26:74-75; Mk 14:72; Lk 5:4-8; 22:61-62), in marked contrast to 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.

34) 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).

35) Peter was the first and only disciple to assert that he would be willing to die for Jesus’ sake (which he later did: Lk 22:33; Jn 13:37).

36) Peter was the first disciple to confesses Christ’s divinity (Mt 16:16).

37) Peter alone among the disciples was told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17), after he proclaimed that Jesus was the Messiah and God (16:16).

38) An argument is made against #37 by asserting that Paul was the first apostle to be taken to heaven to receive a revelation (2 Cor 12:1-4), but in fact 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).

39) Peter was the first Christian to publicly proclaim in a sermon after Pentecost that Jesus was the Messiah and God and Lord (Acts 2:34-36).

40) Peter was the first to inquire about the identity of the one who was to betray Jesus (Jn 13:21-24).

41) Peter was the first disciple to reaffirm belief in Jesus after other disciples forsook Him (Jn 6:66-69).

42) Peter was the first disciple to enter the empty tomb of Jesus (John 20:6); because John, having arrived at the tomb first, waited for him, in deference to the leader (Jn 20:5-8); then John followed.

43) 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).

44) Peter was the first disciple to proclaims Jesus’ omniscience (Jn 21:17).

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

46) 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.

47) 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; cf. 2:22-40).

48) 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).

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

50) Peter was the first Christian to publicly proclaim in a sermon that Jesus had risen (Acts 2:24, 31-32).

51) Peter was the first Christian to publicly proclaim the necessity of baptism, which brings about regeneration (Acts 2:38).

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

53) Peter was the first Christian to publicly proclaim the reception of the indwelling Holy Spirit as a result of baptism (Acts 2:38).

54) 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.”

55) Peter worked the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-8).

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

57) Peter was regarded by the common people as the leader of Christianity (Acts 5:15).

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

59) 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!), and his missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2.

60) 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).

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

62) Peter was the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48), having been among the eleven disciples that Jesus commissioned to “make disciples of all nations” (Mt 28:19 ff.): thus obviously including Gentiles.

63) Peter’s purpose was not to minister primarily to the Jews, since God revealed to him first that the Gentiles were to come into the Christian community, and seeing that Peter he 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 traveled to Antioch and Rome.

64) 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), and we also see that 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).

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

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

67) 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).

68) The whole Church (strongly implied) offers “earnest prayer” for Peter when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).

69) Peter presided over the first council of Christianity (led by “apostles and elders”), and laid down principles afterwards accepted by it; the account reads that after “there had been much debate” (15:7) at the council and “no small dissension and debate” before it (Acts 15:2), Peter rose and spoke (15:7-11) and 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); what we see here is perfectly compatible with the seeds or kernels of the later fully developed papacy.

70) After Peter spoke at the council, and after all the debates, the text states that “all the assembly kept silence” (15:12).

71) The bishop of Jerusalem, James, skipped right over Paul’s (unrecorded) comments and simply agreed with what Peter had said (“Simeon has related . . .”: 15:14) and reiterated it (15:14-21), since Peter had provided the substance of the council’s decree.

72) F. F. Bruce commented on Peter’s role in the Jerusalem Council: “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, 1979, 38).

73) 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).

74) The decree by Peter at this council was proclaimed far and wide by St. Paul (Acts 16:1-8; “they delivered to them for observance the decisions”: 16:4): 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).

75) In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf. 9:17), and he went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18)

76) Fourteen years later (Gal 2:1) Paul 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).

77) Paul 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) and reported back to it (Acts 14:26-28); Antioch was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27).

78) 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), but when Peter was “sent” to Samaria it was strictly by other “apostles” (Acts 8:14).

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

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

81) The office of the papacy 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; in Acts 20:17, 28, Paul calls elders (presbyteros) “overseers” (episkopos).

82) Peter calls God a “bishop” in 1 Peter 1:25.

83) 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 . . . 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).

84) St. Peter, 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.

85) Popes have successors, just as Paul, analogously, appoints a bishop, Timothy, as his successor (apostolic succession), in conjunction with a “council of elders” that ordained him (1 Tim 1:1-4, 12, 18-19; 4:6, 11-16; 6:12, 20; 2 Tim 1:2, 6, 11-14; 2:1-2, 15, 24-26; 4:1-2, 5).

86) Paul mentions Linus, considered by early Christian patristic tradition to be the second pope (2 Tim 4:21) and he mentions the third Pope, Clement (Phil 4:3).

87) 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.

88) Dionysius of Corinth [link; cited by Eusebius (HE., II. xxv. 5-8)], 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.”

89) 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).

90) 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).

91) 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), that Linus was bishop for twelve years (Bk III, ch. 13), 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).

92) Epiphanius (c. 315-403) wrote that the second third, and fourth popes were “Linus and Cletus, Clement” (Panarion 27.6.6-7).

93) St. Jerome (c. 343-420) alludes to Clement and Linus being among the first four popes (De Viris Illustribus, sections 5, 15), 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).

94) Renowned Protestant Church historian, Philip Schaff, in his famous History of the Christian Church, Vol. II: Ante-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 100-325 (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 [c. 96] 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.”

95) Schaff continues: “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 . . . all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome.”

96) 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.

97) 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.

98) 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.

99) Even Jesus called Himself a deacon (Mk 10:45; Lk 22:27) and taught that the leader of the Church would be a “deacon” or servant, following His own example (Lk 22:25-26).

100) Paul taught that a bishop must not “be puffed up with conceit” (1 Tim 3:6) and “must not be arrogant” (Titus 1:7) and Peter taught that Christians should act “with humility toward one another, for ‘God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble’ . . .” (1 Pet 5:5-6; the OT citation also appears in Jas 4:6), and “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’s reference to himself in humility as a “fellow elder” in 1 Peter 5:1 is not in the least a disproof that he was the leader and the pope, because this was following Jesus’ example as a humble servant of all, and is the biblical notion of a Church leader.

101) 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), but the whole passage is tongue-in-cheek and sarcastic, because 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).

102) It’s often argued that Paul’s sharp rebuke of Peter (Gal 2:11-14) undermined his papal authority of the latter; but Peter and Paul didn’t disagree on the inclusion of the Gentiles into the Christian community and this wasn’t a doctrinal difference, but rather, a rebuke for hypocritical practices, which has no bearing on Peter’s office, nor Paul’s position relative to it.

103) 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” and it’s 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); this is what Peter was rebuked by Paul for.

104) Paul himself was no stranger to hypocrisy, by his own explicit report (Rom 7:14-15, 18-19, 22-24), and he even described himself (in the present, not past tense) as “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); therefore, if Peter can’t be a pope because he was being a hypocrite when Paul rebuked him, neither can Paul be an apostle, but this reduces to a reductio ad absurdum.

105) Moses and David were murderers, like Paul was (Peter never committed that grave sin), but didn’t lose their authority as a result, and 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).

106) 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), yet somehow we are led to believe that he didn’t respect Peter’s papal authority, simply because he rebuked him once for hypocrisy?

107) 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 humble description of himself (Jn 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20).

108) It’s argued that only St. John called himself “the elder” (i.e., singular, not plural), but this is 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).

109) 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.

110) Contra-papal / Petrine arguments even stoop to asserting that the demons didn’t recognize Peter (Acts 19:11-13, 15), but the context of Paul being named was Paul’s handkerchiefs healing folks and casting demons out of them; therefore, the Jewish exorcists specifically mention Jesus and Paul, and the demon answered and said, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know”.

111) It’s argued that it makes no sense for the Zebedee brothers to ask if they could be Jesus’ right-hand and left-hand men (Mt 20:20ff) if Jesus already made it clear that Peter was the pope; but 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”).

112) Some critics of the papacy attempt to discredit Peter due to his tempestuous personality, but Peter was willing 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); he responded first so often because he had more praiseworthy zeal.

113) 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, since Abraham lied about his sister, Moses murdered a man, and seemed to have quite a temper, 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, but 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; God chose other similar hotheads and “uneven” people like Samson, Jonah, and Elijah.

114) Peter is disparaged because Jesus said to him, “O man of little faith, why did you doubt?” (Mt 4:31), when Peter was walking on the water and became afraid and began to sink, but what’s overlooked is that Peter was the only one who had faith enough to even try (14:28-29).

115) All of the disciples — not just Peter — doubted at one time or another, because this was before they had received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and all except John, fled and were not present at the crucifixion (Mt 26:31, 56; Mk 14:27, 50); but after they were Spirit-filled, it was a completely different story, and all of the disciples except for Judas and John died as glorious martyrs.

116) 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), but Peter, before he had the Holy Spirit, was understandably concerned about Jesus talking about going to Jerusalem and being killed, and 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.

117) We could have a field day pointing out the many sins of anyone before they committed themselves to Jesus as a disciple; such as St. Paul, for starters, who 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) and also wrote: “I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief” (1 Tim 1:13).

118) Decrying the past sins of apostles should apply equally to Paul, because 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.

119) Peter immediately repented upon hearing the cock crow (Mt 26:75; Lk 22:62) and his sin and moment of weakness — due to a rational fear for his life in that terrible circumstance — literally lasted just a few minutes, whereas 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.

120) 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” and in fact, only one out of about 60 English translations of Acts 24:5 that I consulted has “the ringleader.”

121) 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 . . .”, but Paul never called himself an “evangelist” either, even though he was the greatest evangelist of all time, and he uses the word three times and Jesus never called Himself “God” or “God the Son” and God never calls Himself God the Father in the Bible, even though He is called this name by others many times.

122) 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, but this is untrue, since all twelve disciples had that power (Lk 9:1), and so did the seventy evangelists appointed by Jesus (Lk 10:17, 20); Luke was also the author of Acts.

123) 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.): these would be 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).

124) 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)” — but 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.

125) 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), while Paul was still murdering Christians.

126) 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)” and “In no other apostle do we see a statement like this!”; but 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); in any event, “word of God” in 1 Thessalonians 2:13 is not even the Bible, but rather, oral teaching.

127) The same apologist and polemicist wrote, “Paul writes to Philemon directly from Rome in AD 60, where Peter is supposed to have been. . . . Paul cites four companions with him in Rome . . . (1) Epaphras, (2) Mark, (3) Aristarchus, (4) Demas, and (5) Luke, [and] at no point does Paul quote Peter in Rome!”; but Epaphras was his “fellow prisoner” (1:23), and Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, his “fellow workers” (1:24) and “companions” and all sent “greetings” (1:23), which has nothing to do one way or another with whether Peter was there and was standard practice for Paul at the end of his letters: mentioning 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.

128) One argument that can be used to defend the papacy is the analogy of prophets as infallible, and even inspired, individuals: “If prophets spoke with inspiration, then popes can plausibly speak infallibly, since the latter is a far less extraordinary gift than the former, and 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)” — and prophets in the Old Testament spoke the Word of the Lord, which was not only infallible, but inspired, too, because that was straight from God.

129) 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) and 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.

130) God had to use lousy sinners such as Moses and David and Paul and Peter and Matthew to write the Bible; 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), and 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.

***

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: Delivery of Keys to Saint Peter (c. 1525), by Vincenzo Catena (1470-1531) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Shorter, compact version of my article, “St. Peter the First Pope: 120 Bible Proofs”, with biblical statements regarding Peter as the leader of the disciples & of the early Church.

Papacy & Infallibility

Previous Post

October 30, 2025

Can "PAGAN" Halloween Be "Christianized"?