THEOS prōtos

The papacy, the office of the Pope, evolved from the Bishop of Rome gradually acquiring greater authority and recognition over time. This development was influenced by historical, theological, and political factors, culminating in the Pope’s position as the leader of the Catholic Church. 

Table of Contents

Trusting Sources

We need to point out that there is only one source of infallible information, and that is found only in Holy Scripture. We have an amazing amount of manuscripts, Codexis, papaya, and fragments early enough and close to the events and writings to be able to see WHEN later variants were added and which are more reliable than others.

We also need to point out that the works and writings of the early church fathers are not infallible in their original writing and the copies of the copies of their works are far from infallible as other agenda driven copyists may inject their own words and ideas into the copy of the works or just cherry pick which phrases they like best.

Ignatius, for example; there are generally only 7 possible epistles that may have been written by one person, assumed to be Ignatius. But there are longer versions, shorter versions, and versions in the middle. These are referred to as recensions. Scholars generally agree that the longer versions contain interpolated and a copyist added words and concepts to them; thus proving the propensity for the church to do this. Interestingly, the long recension highly favor the Catholic institutional structure, while the middle and shorter do not as much. The Catholic bias is clear. The short recension is more recently generally believed to be a sort of summery of the letters.

The historical support for Ignatius and his letters are suspect too. Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians (145AD) mentions Ignatius letters, but the pertinent passages mentioning his letters are dubious and considered suspect by most scholars today. When Irenaeus (185AD) appears to quote an Ignatius letter to Rome, he just says that this quote was said by “some of our people” like it was a phrase or saying in that time, and did not ascribe that quote to Ignatius. Origen (230AD) only mentions one possible letter. Origen even claims to remember hearing something Ignatius said, which, can’t be if Ignatius in the 1st and 2nd century. By the 4th century, suddenly there are all these letters written by Ignatius defending the authority of the Roman church as stated by Eusebius (315AD). All this is a major problem for the Catholic Church who greatly depends on his letters being authentic. Thus, Catholic tradition drawn from and dependent on Ignatius is, from the get-go, suspect.

Eusebius as well, is problematic. His bias and political motives are clear in his favoritism of and advocation for the Roman Emperor. He literally believed the Church and State could benefit each other or even be one-in the same. On top of his statism and belief in a religious government, he also was a supporter of Arius, a literal heretic. And not only is his theological reliably questionable, but he makes historical errors and fails to confirm sources he uses. We wrote two different versions of Martyrs of Palestine with different endings. Some historians refer to him as a propagandist. There are theories as to why this is, but it goes to show issues with his writings that we don’t understand.

Some of his sources are questionable, for example, in Church History Vol. 2, Ch 16, para. 1, he states this: “And they say that this Mark was the first that was sent to Egypt, and that he proclaimed the Gospel which he had written, and first established churches in Alexandria.” Who’s “they” and clearly nothing is written confirming this. But, he runs with it as fact and doesn’t cite his source or whoever “they” were. He then tries to create a sense of creditably by name dropping the Jewish historian Philo, but completely (maybe purposefully) mischaracterizes what Philo even said to try and validate the existence of a Christian community founded by Mark. The community Philo spoke of, the Therapeutae, were not a Christian community but a Jewish sect, according to Philo. Pliny the Elder actually calls them Essenes. He just blindly uses certain sources that benefit the points he makes, even if untrue. He then makes another claim with zero source or citation: “It is also said that Philo in the reign of Claudius became acquainted at Rome with Peter, who was then preaching there. Nor is this indeed improbable…” Who “also said?” Philo never mentions Christians or Peter. Philo only mentions describing what the Jewish embassy looked like in Rome, that’s it; and Eusebius then essentially says “it is a possibility,” that they met admitting his lack of evidence and just making a assumption based on mischaracterizations and a visit to Rome. There were over 1 million people in Rome, it is doubtful and highly unlikely, more so than Eusebius’ probability, that Philo ever bumped into Peter at the embassy in Rome and chose to never write about it.

All of this make it problematic when he is used as a source for the authority and reliability of Catholic tradition. To just skip over this issue is willful ignorance and turning a blind eye to the possibility of faith in a man-made invented traditions not from the Apostles.

When you combine more than one unreliable source, it only increases the odds of trusting something in error. When Eusebius cites Ignatius, the later is the primary source, which is still questionable. When the former depends on the questionable source, it too becomes questionable; and a more in-depth analyzes must be considered. When both sources are questionable in their own right, that which is trying to be validated by them, can’t be.

Now, we are NOT arguing to “throw the baby out with the bath water” but ALL sources must be compared to Holy Scripture. If Ignatius and Eusebius say things that are in-line with Holy Scripture, that concept or idea in their writings is validated and could be trusted. But if it is not in-line with Holy Scripture, it then must be understood as carnal and worldly. If Ignatius and Eusebius (or any other extra-biblical source) makes claims of things outside of scripture, it MUST be remembered that it is NOT inspired, NOT infallible, due to the fact that it HAS been proven to be questionable, dubious, suspicious, humanistic, and carnal in nature.

Finally, since Holy Scripture is the ONLY trustworthy standard of the Church in all things, we must keep in mind this verse from Paul:

1 Corinthians 4:6: “Now these things, brothers and sisters, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos on your account, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.”

What is written? All the Old Testament writings and the synoptic gospels with some of the apostolic letters that had been written by this time (~54AD). The only things that may not have been written by the time of this letter was probably the Gospel of John, Revelation, Ephesians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 – 3 John, and Jude. Regardless, the message is clear, do not exceed what the Apostles wrote and teach (and will write down) and Holy Scripture all together and as a whole.

With all that in mind, the first question we must ask is:

Was Peter More Than Just an Apostle?

The primacy and authority that the Catholic Church claims the pope’s authority rests not in the title “pope,” but in his office as bishop of Rome and successor of Peter. This will lead to 3 questions we will later need to answer: 1) Why is the pope the only successor to the person of Peter when Peter may have founded several other Churches before Rome? 2) Are Catholic papal traditions reliability, what validates these traditions as true and authoritative? 3) If Peter was just an Elder, what is the issue with other fellow Elder’s with the Apostolic writings not allowed to shepherd their flocks under Christ’s authority too?

The official Catholic position, as Eamon Duffy points out in his book Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, is that Jesus had essentially appointed Peter as the first pope. Did he?

This is the go-to verse for Catholics and a source verse for all Papal justifications, but, there is a fundamental problem at its core argument:

Matthew 16:18

Matthew 16:18 says “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.”

Peter = Petros, a movable stone or pebble
rock = petra, massive rock formation, immovable; bedrock

Not the same word. Not the same meaning. Not the same thing.

It is important to note that these two words sound similar but have different meanings and implications. From the word meanings alone we can see that Peter is not the rock. But what we can understand is that Peter was part of the bedrock foundation on which Jesus built his church. The bedrock is a large rock formation, Peter was a part of this. This also means, the other Apostles were other stones and pebbles that also made up the foundation of the Church.

Also, in no way as asserted by Eamon Duffy that is verse remotely states that Jesus had essentially appointed Peter as the first pope. That is NOT what is stated.

1 Corinthians 10:1-4 “For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our fathers were all under the cloud and they all passed through the sea; ² and they all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; ³ and they all ate the same spiritual food, ⁴ and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.“

Here Paul uses the same word “rock” (“petra”) and associates it to Christ, not Peter or any of the apostles. Thus, the foundation of the church rests on Christ, and not Peter. BUT, it also does say that Peter (and the other Apostles) played a role in being part of the bedrock and foundation of the Church, all under the direction and power of Christ. This is true. We look to THEIR writings, influenced by the Holy Spirit, as the foundation of truth and faith.

Ephesians 2:19-20: “So then you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, ²⁰ having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone,“

That concept of Jesus being THE foundational slab of stone is again highlighted here by Paul.

John 21:15-17

Catholics claim this verse shows that Peter was selected by Jesus to lead the entire church. So, let’s study this verse:

John 21:15-17: “So when they had finished breakfast, 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, “Tend My lambs.” ¹⁶ He *said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” He *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He *said to him, “Shepherd 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 all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus *said to him, “Tend My sheep.“

The reason WHY Jesus is speaking directly to Peter is important to the context and meaning of their conversation. Keep in mind, this interaction is in the presence of the other disciples too.

FIRST: Notice the NAME Jesus called Peter. He did not call him “Peter” or “Cephas” (kēphas/Petros: rock/pebble). He called him by his EARTHLY parental and worldly name: SIMON BAR-JONA or Simon, son of John. This is a reminder of his imperfect humanity and need for Jesus. This is humbling for someone like Peter. A reminder that he didn’t standfast like a rock.

SECOND: Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus more than his best friends, even his own brothers, blood brothers (Andrew is one of “these” Jesus is referring to). There are several reasons why Jesus would ask him that, but primarily it was because of what he, himself, said to Jesus in Matthew 26:33. It’s like asking, “Peter, remember when you said you loved me more than all the other disciples that you would never deny me, remember saying that, how’d that workout for you?” This is why he called him Simon, son of John, to remind him of his humanity, flesh, and PERSONAL need for mercy, forgiveness, grace, and the work of Jesus Christ. Ultimately it is to hit so deep that it forever reminds him that Jesus is his foundation of why he is called as an Apostle, not himself. This smashes the pride of Peter, as we will get to later. This is why Jesus asked him 3 times, to remind him of the time Peter denied Jesus 3 times. Though ALL the disciples deserted him at the cross, only Peter denied him so openly, so emphatically, no other Apostle is recording doing this. This is the reason and need for Jesus’ open and emphatic call for Peter’s response in the midst of all the other disciples. They too would remember this moment.

THIRD: Jesus uses agapaō (all giving, uncaused, unselfish, sacrificial fatherly) love twice, and Peter responds with phileō (reciprocal friendly affection and brotherly) love. Then, as he continues to asking him, Jesus uses phileō love, to which Peter responds with phileō love. Now, because Peter, being reminded of and knowing what he is capable of, is more hesitant and reserved in his words. Even in Peter’s reservation, Jesus meets him there and asks if he phileō loves him, to which Peter responds, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I [phileō] love You.” In other words, he is now willing, after such humbling, to love Jesus the best he knows how; and how does he show this love? By tending, shepherding, and feeding his Sheep, as a chosen Apostle of Jesus Christ.

FOURTH: Jesus makes it absolutely clear about one thing: the lambs and sheep, belong to Christ Jesus, not him:  “Tend My lambs… Shepherd My sheep… Tend My sheep.” The church, the body of Christ, the Bride belongs to Jesus. Jesus is the head of the lambs and sheep, they are his, not Peters. Jesus uses Lambs and Sheep to signify the immature and mature, the young and the old, everyone who believes in Christ Jesus, are HIS (Also see Matthew 19:13-14).

FIFTH: Nothing in this text hints that Jesus made him the leader of the entire Church or granted some kind of superior position over the rest of the Apostles. What Jesus is asking him to do, is what ALL the Apostles and Elders are EXPECTED to do. Peter just needed extra humbling to get there. This is not a personalized mandate seeing as how ALL the Apostles are to tend and shepherded all those whom they are entrusted with too. Peter is targeted here, in front of all the other Apostles, to show them and him of his humbling and restoration; the level of mercy, forgiveness, and grace, making Peter a real life example of such.

Peter himself makes something very clear:

1 Peter 5:1-4

“Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, ² shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; ³ nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. ⁴ And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.“

Peter himself makes it clear that all the Elders are FELLOW Elders WITH Peter. He does NOT put himself above them. And all Elders are to “shepherd the flock… exercising oversight… over those allotted to [their] charge.” These elders are to be examples to their flock that THEY are charged with overseeing. The only ranking structure Peter uses is that He and all the other Elders are “fellow elders” shepherding their flocks, but only Jesus is the “Chief Shepherd.” ZERO illusion or mention of a sort of sub-chief shepherd elder. THEN, notice how Peter goes into HUMILITY right after (v. 5-7). Peter remembers Jesus’ humbling of HIM on this topic.

When we even look at the word “fellow elder” we see exactly what he meant:

sympresbyteros (συμπρεσβύτερος) = sym (σύν) + presbyteros (πρεσβύτερος)

πρεσβύτερος – presbyteros – “a term of rank or office, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably“

σύν – syn – “with, a primary preposition denoting union; with or together, by association, companionship, process, resemblance, possession, instrumentality, addition, etc.:—beside, with.“

Peter’s chosen word does NOT illude to him being a higher rank than the other elders, nor a greater elder. There is NO HINT of this in HIS own word choice.

This the completion of Peter’s humility and restoration of Peter after his denials in John 21:15-17; he will remember for the rest of his life.

Jesus Spoke Aramaic

Another Catholic argument regarding this translation is that Jesus spoke Aramaic. This is accurate. The name that Jesus gave Peter in John 1:42 is then rendered kēphas which translates into petros. But it can’t escape the fact that kēphas = petros = “a moveable stone or pebble” and STILL has a different meaning than that of petra, massive rock formation; bedrock.

Are the Greek Manuscripts in Error?

For Matthew 16:18 to be rendered “And I also say to you that you are kēphas, and upon this kēphas I will build My church,” wouldn’t then the Alexandrian and Byzantine Greek manuscripts that use petros and petra be in error? The claim would then imply that the greek manuscirpts containing this verse such as Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Bezae, Codex Washingtonianus, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Codex Purpureus Rossanensis, Codex Petropolitanus Purpureus, and Codex Sinopensis improperly use different words (petros and petra) when they should be the same word (kēphas). Either there IS a different meaning than what Catholics are hoping for with the different greek word usage, OR that is a translation error in all the Greek Alexandrian and Byzantine manuscripts.

This Catholic argument demands the existence of an Aramaic Gospel of Matthew that contradicts all the Greek Alexandrian and Byzantine manuscripts translation of Matthew… that has never been discovered.

We don’t believe the Alexandrian and Byzantine manuscripts in regards to this verse in Matthew are in error, thus petros and petra are proper translations. And with that, it is impossible to escape the fact that even though Jesus was speaking Aramaic, two different word meanings are used in Matthew 16:18. Some mischaracterize the argument claiming that it is the feminine and masculine differences only, but that is not true. Yes, there is a feminine and masculine change, but there is a meaning that is different too.

Tatian the Syrian Quotes Matthew 16

Then, some will turn to outside biblical sources to interpret biblical concepts, which is never a wise thing. Exactly what Gnosticism did when they started inventing their own meanings and belief systems. What some Catholics turn to is Tatian the Syrian’s writing where he quotes Matthew 16:18. Keep in mind, Tatian was NOT an apostle. Nor did he live in the 1st century with the Apostles. They quote The Diatesseron 23, para 31: “…And I say unto thee also, that thou art Cephas, and on this rock will I build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it…” Even though Tatian was Assyrian, he most likely spoke Aramaic and Greek. His writings uses the Aramaic word kēphas, but as discussed above, this has no effect because the meanings of kēphas and petra are still different no matter what language you translate it into.

This also isn’t setting Peter apart, as his own movable rock, seeing that ALL the Apostles carried with them THE SAME witness being an Apostle of Jesus Christ. They all were movable rocks that through their eye witness of the true corner stone, Christ himself, laid the foundation of the church, which rests on the massive rock formation, immovable; bedrock of Christ’s person and work, that they were made eye witnesses of.

Back to the Table of Contents

What Titles and Names Did Peter Have in Scripture?

• Peter is also called SIMON BAR-JONA and CEPHAS (Matthew 16:16-19; Mark 3:16; John 1:42).
• SIMEON was a name given to Peter (Acts 15:14).
• Husband would have been a title he would have applied to himself sinse he was married (Mark 1:30,31) and had a son-in-law (Mark 1:29,30; Luke 4:38).
• Fellow believers in the faith he calls brothers (1 Peter 1:22)
• Fellow Elder to all the other elders (1 Peter 5:1-4)
• An Apostle and bond-servant of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1)

There is no record whatsoever of Peter recognizing himself in any Papal/superior apostolic office or any sort of Papal title or official higher ranking concept.

He didn’t use any sort of title and no one else applied any sort of title to him in Scripture. That’s a problem. Because, if the Papal Office was so important, so necessary, and was an actual thing of original church traditions, why was it not important enough, not necessary enough, or even illuded to by all those who were the foundation of the Church, the Apostles? Why was a Deacon defined, but not some sort of superior apostolic position over all the church? If Peter did hold the authority to define Church institutions and be the ultimate administrator, why wasn’t he allowed to determine the qualifications for the offices of deacon and elder?

Catholic Church’s Own Admissions

The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “ . . . the scarcity of documents leaves much that is obscure about the early development of the episcopate . . . ”—(1967), Vol. I, p. 696.

Jesuit John McKenzie, when professor of theology at Notre Dame, wrote: “Historical evidence does not exist for the entire chain of succession of church authority.”—The Roman Catholic Church (New York, 1969), p. 4.

Back to the Table of Contents

Was Peter the Designated Leader of the Apostles?

Now, his forwardness, assertiveness, and boldness ARE clear in scripture. But those are personally traits and NOT an admission of some sort of undefined, unnamed, important, necessary, official papal office from the 1st century. He exhibited “main character energy” and was the first focal person of the written gospels (The Gospel of Mark, the translator of Peter, per tradition).

Did Jesus Call Peter first?

Peter wasn’t the first disciple called; it was him AND his brother Andrew. Jesus saw THEM and said to both of THEM “follow me” (Matthew 4:17-19). John provides us with more details about their meeting with Jesus and it was Andrew that technically met Jesus first, who then introduced him to Jesus (John 1:40). When we see the whole picture, we see that Peter wasn’t approached by Jesus first. The Gospel of Luke gets into all the details of the event as a whole (Luke 5:1-11) and includes an early assertive confession of Peter, before he really knew who Jesus was.

Validated Leader by Home Visitations?

Jesus did visit Peter’s house, but he also visited other homes as well. Jesus even went to a Pharisees’ house (Luke 14:1). Thus, being welcomed into a home is not a sign or proof of their leadership. In fact, that was a norm for everyone in that culture.

Named/Listed First as a Sign of Leadership?

Now there might be something of importance here. Even when John mentions Andrew, he immediately associated him with Peter. When Matthew lists the Apostles, Peter is listed first (Matthew 10:2). BUT this could also be because it is Peter who is the one that just reacts, takes quick action, bullheaded and assertive, more so than all the other Apostles. This is a character trait, a sort of personality of Peter. He just TAKES charge rather than the charge being given to him. Peter sticks out like a sore thumb in all the minds of the Apostles and early church. Why? Well, he was “that guy,” that one that TOOK charge and made impulsive decisions. This doesn’t say anything about Jesus or the other Apostles GIVING him the official role as Group Leader (that is not stated anywhere in Scripture), Peter just took action regardless and probably just became assumed. All the other Apostles were probably like, “Ah, I’ll wait, Peter will volunteer or ask, I’m sure“

When Mark lists all the Apostles, he too lists Peter first, but states they all as have the same authority and abilities (Mark 3:14-19).

Mark 3:14-19: “And He *went up on the mountain and *summoned those whom He Himself wanted, and they came to Him. ¹⁴ And He appointed twelve, so that they would be with Him and that He could send them out to preach, ¹⁵ and to have authority to cast out the demons. ¹⁶ And He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom He gave the name Peter), ¹⁷ James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to them He gave the name Boanerges, which means, “Sons of Thunder”); ¹⁸ and Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, and Simon the Zealot; ¹⁹ and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed Him.“

Before they were known as the Twelve Apostles, Jesus had a crowd of disciples listen to him teach and follow him. Out of all those disciples, Twelve were chosen to become the Apostles (Luke 6:12-16), but none of them were given a superior title or role than the other.

In fact, in the sentence about having authority in verse 15, it is sandwiched between and in the context of “they”, “them”, and “the twelve” and not “Peter” alone. Therefore, the “authority” Jesus gave, was to ALL twelve, and not to Peter alone, and NO special authority is given to Peter.

Also, the order in which the Apostles are mentioned seem to be mentioned by who is most memorable, involved, and not by authority or rank of calling. The inner-three, who were closest to Jesus, who saw way more impressive and amazing things, were the first three listed.

Number of Times Peter is Mentioned

It is interesting to note how many times Peter is mentioned. Even among all the other Apostles, his name gets segregated at times. No one doubts or argues that Peter had the biggest role in the gospels. But what does that mean, exactly? Well, we can make assumptions like as to why his name is listed first, but assumptions aren’t true simply based on circumstantial thought. As we get into his personality traits exhibiting leadership qualities, but also his pride, the humiliation and, and ultimate restoration, we believe that sufficiently addresses why he is mentioned the most.

Also, the gospel of Mark is believed to be the oldest and first written gospel. Mark, by tradition, was the disciple and interpreter of Peter. Being the first and setting the tone and standard for the divine written record, Peter, of course, would be the first and initial focal point perspective. That’s who Mark got his information from. Then, this standard and focal point perspective is then carried over into the synoptic Gospels as the others recall what they remember (influenced and protected by the Holy Spirit) from their perspectives.

Therefore, simply being mentioned the most doesn’t amount to being the supreme bishop over all the church.

Supreme Authority

Mark 3:14-19 shows us that all those listed Apostles had the same authority.

In Matthew 18:15-19, Jesus doesn’t give the authority as arbitrator of church discipline to any one single person, like Peter, but to anyone who is faithful and right. In context he was speaking to the Apostles, all of them (Matt. 18:1).

In 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 it is Paul exercising apostolic the authority over the church of Corinth, and not Peter. Nor does he mention seeking the opinion or permission from Peter, at all. He then goes on to explicitly state: “For this reason I am writing these things while absent, so that when present I need not use severity, in accordance with the authority which the Lord gave me for building up and not for tearing down. (2 Corinthians 13:10)” Peter isn’t the only Apostle with this level of authority. They all did.

Titus 2:15: “These things speak and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. No one is to disregard you.“

Paul clearly states that TITUS also has the same level of authority as the Apostles over his own congregation. He is an ordained elder of a local church. It’s not about the apostles having sole authority, its about the rightness and source of the authority. The Apostles are authoritative because they KNOW the author of truth. Titus can exercise the same authority (Titus 3:10-11) because he too knows the author of truth and has been appointed by others who know the author of truth. Thus, this authority, isn’t Peter’s alone. It’s not a unity of one authoritative office alone but a unity of testimony and witness to the words, deeds, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. Titus should be listened to by his congregation just as they should listen to Paul and Peter.

Paul doesn’t argue that his people MUST, BY FORCE, accept Titus and Timothy’s authority but he appeals to the fact that Titus and Timothy KNOW the author of truth and have labored WITH Paul, thus they have been proven true, faithful, and reliable to be listened to and be granted that authority (1 Corinthians 16:10; 16:16; 2 Corinthians 8:23) with no mention of Peter giving a stamp of approval. And how do they and we today know who to submit and grant authority to as an overseer and elder/bishop? Look no further than 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Acts 17:10-12.

If Peter is the head of the Church and leader of the Apostles, why is James making his own judgements about how to instruct new believers in the faith? In Acts 15:13-29 we see that even a letter was written to them, an authoritative letter, under the direction of James, not Peter.

2 Corinthians 11:5 is also a problem for the claim that Peter was a superior Apostle. Paul states: “For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.” Thus, all the Apostles had equal authority.

Luke 22:32 – Strengthen your brothers

but I have prayed for you, that your faith will not fail; and you, when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

In full context, Jesus just was just talking to all the Apostles addressing their question about which Apostle is greatest. Verses 28-30 are still referring to all the Apostles. This is a “second-person plural noun” when Jesus uses “you.” We know this because of how he opens up with it when he said, “You are the ones who…” Verse 31 is still in the plural regarding Satan’s request, thus, Satan’s request was to weed out the Apostles, and not just one of them. But then, Jesus changes gears and speaks directly to “Simon” in verse 32. He does not call him Cephas. Why would he suddenly turn to Peter right after mentioning Satan’s request? Because Jesus knew exactly when and how Peter would fall away and deny him. But Jesus wanted Peter to know that even though he will deny him, Jesus had secured his faith and would return to Jesus.

Verse 32 is where all sorts of extravagant assumptions are made and meanings are injected into the text.

Keep in mind, ALL The Apostles flee Jesus when he is arrested. They are ALL disheartened by what happened to Jesus, because NONE of them fully understood and comprehended what WILL take place after Jesus’ death. Thus, ALL the Apostles will be in mourning, sad, weak, and vulnerable.

Jesus is telling Peter that despite what is going to happen and despite what HE WILL DO (fall away and deny Jesus), his brothers still need him and to be there for them, together. Why does Jesus direct this comment to Peter and not John, James, or Andrew? Well, it is Peter that is going to be massively humbled and then lit on fire when restored.

Just as Jesus remembered Mary on the cross to have John take care of her, he is reminding Peter to take care of his brothers. Does this mean all the other Apostles don’t need to strengthen each other? Nope. They are to also, but Peter is called out because of the weight of his situation that is coming.

This isn’t a special request or special duty only given to Peter. But he is singled out because notice the arrogant and ignorant comments he makes next in verse 33.

To save the a point for last, refer back to what Peter himself said regarding how he felt he was to the other elders.

Plurality of Elders

In Acts 20:17 we see Paul call a meeting of “the elders of the church.” There was not one single head elder but a plurality of elder leaders.

At the church in Philippi, Paul greets “the overseers and deacons” all in plural without mention of one single lead bishop (overseer) (Philippians 1:1).

Paul then instructs Titus to “appoint elders in every city” (Titus 1:5). Now, why would he say that instead of appointing a lead elder to then appoint the rest? Here, “every city” will have a plurality of elders leading it. Also, this order to appoint makes no mention of Peter, being the Chief Apostle, signing off on this either. Paul gives Titus the authority to appoint other elders. He then goes on to give qualifications for an elder.

Paul tells Timothy to keep any eye out for “any man” who “aspires to the office of bishop/overseer” to apply certain criteria and qualifications to them (1 Timothy 3:1–2). This “any man” implies there can be more than one.

Clement of Rome (Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, XLIV.3–5) even stated that Bishops/overseers were appointed by the Apostles AND later by “eminent (respected) men. with the consent of the whole Church.” Again, “those who were appointed” is plural.

Ignatius (Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans VIII, in Lake, 261) uses the office in the singular, but it still can be applied to more than one. He states: “See that you all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as if it were the Apostles.” If you attend a church that has 3 bishops, and one of the bishops gives you instructions, See that you all follow the bishop who gave you that instruction. The context is still plural even though he is speaking of a specific bishop. The presbytery is plural and Apostles is plural.

Sometimes what also gets missed is the singular use of Bishop can also refer to the one office, and apply to all who hold that one office. When Ignatius speaks of “the bishop” he can also be referring to the office of and everyone who is in that office.

But, historically, as the ranks within the church thinned out due to persecution, there would and may have been instances where there may have been only one bishop/overseer. Either everyone else was to scared to step up or were killed off. This would cause the church to change and adapt. This could be why we see it change over time for several reasons: 1) All the Apostles died; 2) Those who they appointed died; and 3) Persecution killed off other potential Elders. It is fair to see that by the 3rd century, there was one primary bishop/overseer of a church. A shift away from how it is laid out in Holy Scripture.

Regardless, we see that the Church was managed and administrated by a plurality of elders for its first 100 years before it started to evolve and head down the road of single bishop rule.

John 10:16 – One Shepherd

“I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.“

The “other sheep” are gentiles. To properly understand this ask, how many Bodies of Christ are there? One. How many Brides of Christ are there? One. Who is the shepherd of the Body and Bride of Christ? Christ Jesus.

The profound unity we experience arises not from coercing every sheep into a singular fold, but from the beautiful truth that they all listen to, respond to, and faithfully follow one Shepherd. This is not just a mere ecclesiastical unity; it is a loyalty to Jesus Christ that binds the universal church together; the invisible church who visibly exercise their faith and do good works because of that same faith.

The Body of Christ is made up of different members, not all are one member (1 Corinthians 12:12-27), but all under one head, who is Christ Jesus, the head of the church (Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18), not the seat of Peter.

Catholics assume in their premise that the Holy Spirit can’t control, administer, influence, and build or prune Christ’s Church and that THEY have to do it. They assume the Holy Spirit only works through THEIR chosen elders, which, historically and biblically, we know this is far from the truth. This is the EXACT thought the Pharisees had about their own religiosity and religious structure. THEY were the sole arbitrators of truth. But, now, WE have the Holy Spirit working in each and every one of us who believe. Thus, affording elders to be raised up by God from any and all walks of life, cultures, ethnicities, and church denominations; but only those who talk in the spirit, taught by the Spirit, and are in full agreement with the Apostolic witness and testimony, just like Titus and Timothy, Clement and Linus.

The Catholics are right when they say there is only one true church. But they focus on the carnal, the physical, the worldly part; and fail to see that the true church on earth is invisible and of the Spirit, and made up of ALL THOSE WHO BELIEVE and born of the Spirit, baptized by the Spirit, adopted by God the Father, hand over to and drawn to Christ, faithful to Him as their Lord God and Savior, led by Elders who also believe and proclaim sound apostolic doctrine revealed in Holy Scripture. The church is MORE than a old worldly institution, it’s spiritual, it’s supernatural, it is the Bride of Christ.

Despite this, we see later church writers invent statements not made by the Holy Spirit in Holy Scripture.

Eusebius of Caesarea in Ecclesiastical History II.14.6–15.2 states: “during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to Rome against this great corrupter of life.“

Eusebius’ thought that Peter was the “greatest of the apostles” and “speaker for all the others [apostles]” does not appear to come from Holy Scripture as this concept is foreign to scripture, as reviewed above. Anyone just simply stating a random thought or comment does not make it true by their words alone. So, the question question we will research is was Peter the “strongest” and the “speaker for all” the apostles? Let’s look at WHO he was revealed to be in Holy Scripture.

Back to the Table of Contents

Personality and Character Traits of Peter

Makes Head-strong, Impulsive, Knee-jerk, and Bras Decisions

Peter was the first to want to go out into the water with Jesus when Jesus was walking on it, but Peter wasn’t ready yet (Matthew 14:22-33), it was his impulsivity, immature in faith. Then, other times Peter just blurts out things without thinking (Luke 9:33).

Matt. 14:30 “But seeing the wind, he became frightened, and when he began to sink, he cried out, saying, “Lord, save me!” ³¹ Immediately Jesus reached out with His hand and took hold of him, and *said to him, “You of little faith, why did you doubt?”“

Luke 9:33: “And as these two men were leaving Him, Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good that we are here; and let’s make three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah”—not realizing what he was saying.“

Right after he confessed that Jesus is the Son of God, the next thing he does is pull Jesus aside and privately rebuke him for teaching that he will suffer and be killed saying essentially that he wouldn’t allow that to happen. Imagine how prideful you have to be to rebuke the Messiah, the Christ, God Incarnate? Remember, Peter already called Jesus “Lord” (Luke 5:8) and now he feels like he can rebuke him. Jesus sharply rebukes his carnally prideful and humanistic selfish idea (Matthew 16:21-23; Mark 8:32-33).

Notice Jesus’ comment regarding Peter’s his carnal prideful mindset:

Matthew 16:23 “But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s purposes, but men’s.”“

At the transfiguration, Peter suggests to make tents (tabernacles) for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah, but this ignorant idea was flat out ignored by Jesus (Matthew 17:4-9; Mark 9:2-8). The kind of tent Peter is talking about was a tabernacle, which was a holy place for God to reside and where he can be worshiped. Here, Peter is talking about making one for Moses and Elijah too… very humanistic idea. To venerate, if you will, Moses and Elijah. Completely ignored by Jesus and deserved no response for two reasons: 1) Luke 9:33 tells us he really didn’t know what he was saying. 2) Jesus already rebuked this worldly carnal mindset in Matthew 16:23.

Even after Jesus reveals something that they will all do, Peter refused to accept the words of Jesus. He tries to assert himself above the other disciples, but it is Jesus that brings him back down to their level (Matthew 26:30-35; Mark 14:26-31; Luke 22:33-34; John 13:37). To drive this point home, it is Peter that God will have deny Christ three times, and not the other Apostles, only Peter. Though they all fled and scattered, it is Peter who will be massively humbled.

Matthew 26:31 “³¹ Then Jesus *said to them, “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.’ ³² But after I have been raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee.” ³³ But Peter replied to Him, “Even if they all fall away because of You, I will never fall away!” 

Imagine the arrogance and pride it took to think not only were the words of the Messiah incorrect but that a prophecy in God’s Word was also wrong. He was better than those Jesus was talking about. He was better than those that it was prophesied about. He was better than all the other Apostles. But, of course, Jesus shuts down the aminase arrogance and pride of Peter.

And not long after Peter was telling Jesus he would never let anything happen to Jesus, he falls asleep when he was supposed to keep watch (Matthew 26:30-40; Mark 14:37).

Matthew 26:40-41: “And He *came to the disciples and *found them sleeping, and He said to Peter, “So, you men could not keep watch with Me for one hour? ⁴¹ Keep watching and praying, so that you do not come into temptation; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”“

Peter’s spirit as willing in that he feverously desired to follow Jesus, but, he still struggled as a human; far from being infallible.

He was such a impulsive zealot that he didn’t fully trust Jesus, even up to the night of Jesus’ arrest. He thought he could prevent Jesus’ arrest and show Jesus his love by fighting for him (John 18:10-11). None of which Jesus asked him to do.

John 18:11 “So Jesus said to Peter, “Put the sword into the sheath; the cup which the Father has given Me, am I not to drink it?”“

Peter, again, does something impulsive out of ignorance, pride, fear, anger, and lack of faith and trust in WHO Jesus is, WHO’S WILL Jesus is doing, and WHY it must be done. All these things Jesus TOLD HIM about already, yet, he didn’t fully believe it or trust it. HE thought he could PREVENT something HE didn’t like, or something HE didn’t want to happen. Imagine the carnal pride it took to think HE could SAVE the Messiah and Son of God from doing God’s Will… wild. THIS is why God humbles Peter greatly.

After Jesus was arrested, he did nothing of which he told Jesus he would do, but instead, keep watch from afar (Matthew 26:58; Mark 14:54; Luke 22:54; John 18:15). Not only did Peter NOT do all the things he told Jesus he would do, but he goes on to deny Jesus three times in a row, just as Jesus said he would (Matthew 26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; John 18:17-25). Not only did Peter know he denied him, but he saw Jesus look at him when he did it (Luke 22:61). I bet that moment in his life cut DEEP. This is that humbling a prideful person needs.

Because of these denials, lack of faith, and pride, his remorse and regret must have been greatly weighing on him. Despite all that, he still remained with the other Apostles. God instructed an angel to make sure they know about Jesus’ resurrection and Peter is named specifically (Mark 16:7). God is giving Peter that specialized, personalized hope he needed. Hearing this, Peter jumped up and ran to go see it for himself (Luke 24:12) with John (John 20:2-6).

Similar to his responses to the accusation of denying Jesus, Peter has a real pride problem about just trusting and resting in words of Jesus as he keeps questioning and rebutting the things that Jesus says (John 13:6-10), but God has a way to humbling the most prideful people. The interaction with Peter and Jesus about feeding his sheep is what smashed Peter’s pride and really completes his humbling and restored him from that guilt and regret of denial, doubt, lack of faith, and pride (John 21:15-19).

These decisions and actions by Peter have been interpreted as “leadership” qualities BUT they also appear more like pridefulness. Does a “leader” of the followers of the Master question, doubt, and rebuke the Master? If THAT is being a leader, we may want to rethink what being a leader is. What did Peter do that ALL the Apostles weren’t ALSO expected to do? Nothing. Everything he did do, correctly, they all were to do.

He exhibited a greater amount of pride than all the other 10 disciples; which needed a greater amount of humbling. It could be argued that Scripture portrays Peter as the most prideful Apostle that receives the greatest humbling, mercy, and grace.

The argument for his Leadership based on his actions is a double edged sword. Yes, he spoke up first, he acted first, the took the initiative, but he ALSO questioned God incarnate to his face, even tried to rebuke him. No other Apostle had to be more humbled by God than Peter.

First to Raise His Hand in Class

Even though Jesus was talking to ALL the disciples, it was Peter who threw his hand up first to give the answer to Jesus’ question (Matthew 16:13-18; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-20) and it was on that confession of WHO JESUS IS that the foundation of the church, through the Apostles like Peter, will be laid. In the full context, the foundational rock of the Church is the apostolic testimony, witness, and confession of who Jesus is; the rock is Jesus and the apostolic witness of Jesus make up this foundational layer in which the Church rests on.

When the Apostles were worried about what Jesus meant, Peter would ask follow up questions to clarify (Matthew 19:25-30; Luke 12:41; John 13:36). When he had real questions of his own, he had not fear or be too embarrassed to walk up and ask Jesus (Matthew 18:21-22; John 6:68). All the disciples, including Peter, understood that the Pharisees were becoming offended and agitated by Jesus, but it was Peter that asked for clarification on the parable Jesus taught that made them offended (Matthew 15:10-16). He wanted to know what sort of reward or benefit they will have for giving up everything for following Jesus (Matthew 19:27).

When everyone else would stay quiet or wouldn’t add anything additional or ask more questions, Peter injects, asks, and adds more comments (Luke 8:45). Not that they wouldn’t have or didn’t want to, but it was Peter that beat them to the punch.

Obvious Leader or Weak Zealot?

Given that Peter was ignorantly assertive and prideful at times, but was also part of the inner three, the outsiders (the Pharisees and Jewish religious leaders) may have saw him as part of the sort of leadership team of the Apostles (Jesus had around 70 disciples), but outsiders who hate Jesus, may have saw him as an opportunity and someone who they can turn and manipulate. They knew he was “one of them,” a proud cultural Jew, which Paul rebukes him for later (Galatians 2:11-14). The Tax-Collectors walked up to Peter asking for the temple tax (Matthew 17:24). Jesus transformed this into a teachable moment, but regardless, the Jewish Tax-Collectors saw Peter as one who will get the taxes paid knowing he would comply.

It is interesting to also note that Satan asked to have Peter, maybe the same way he did for Job. But when we read the High Priestly Prayer, we see that Satan couldn’t have any of them (John 17:12), except of Judas (Luke 22:31-34). It is important to also note that no where in Jesus’ prayer does he ever pray for Peter’s leadership, any sort of unique position, or even hint at any sort of Apostolic leader or any kind of superior apostle, but speaks about them all together, equally (John 17).

Part of the Inner Three

Peter was privileged be made an eye witness to some things that not all the Apostles got to witness, but, he wasn’t the only one. James and John were also privileged to see those same things as well, such as the transfiguration (Matthew 17:1; Mark 9:2-8; Luke 9:28). This doesn’t put him above, as leader, James and John, thus, this isn’t a symbol of validating his leadership role, when he wasn’t the only one invited.

In Jesus’ deepest moments with God the Father, it was the same inner three that were allowed to witness Jesus in the Garden of  Gethsemane before his arrest (Matthew 26:36-37; Mark 14:33-34).

It was only this inner three that got to witness the resurrection of a child (Mark 5:37-43; Luke 8:51).

The inner three, plus Andrew, privately asked Jesus about the signs of the end of the age (Mark 13:3-50).

There is a sort of an Inner-Two, where only Peter and John were sent to prepare the most important Passover meal in history (Luke 22:8). Again, Peter wasn’t put in charge, but was assigned WITH John the task. We see that they are in fact very close friends (John 13:22-25), but it was John who recognized the resurrected Jesus first (John 21:7-10). Peter even wanted to know the future about his friend John (John 21:20-23) but Jesus pretty much told him to mind his business. An odd thing to say to someone who was suppose to be in charge and be the leader of the group. Now, as the “leader” you would think it would be his business, but Jesus never gave Peter a leadership title either.

Back to the Table of Contents

Leadership in Heaven

Peter may have had a leadership personality traits and was assertive with his actions, but, in Heaven, he still will just sit on one of the 12 thrones of Judgement over the tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:25-30). He isn’t placed in a predominate role, but an equal role to the other Apostles. Throughout John’s Gospel, Peter shares his prominence with John (13:24; 18:15; 19:26, 27).

All the Popes of history wont be seated above any one else and no where in Holy Scripture does it say they will have a throne of their own. There are only 12 thrones for the Apostles and only the Apostles will sit on them. God in Holy Scripture reveals nothing about any sort of papacy or superior apostle.

2 Corinthians 11:5 is also a problem for the claim that Peter was a superior Apostle. Paul states: “For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.” Thus, all the Apostles had equal authority.

Back to the Table of Contents

Post-Resurrection Spirit Filled Peter in Acts

After Jesus massively humbled Peter and spent 40 days with the apostles prior to ascending to heaven, we see in Acts that Peter was on fire for Christ!

To ensure that the church grows and not shrinks, he leads the charge to appoint a disciple to fill Judas’ opening. Notice, HE doesn’t appoint the disciple, but instead they cast lots (Acts 1:15-26). Though Peter and the rest of the Apostles filled the slot by casting lots, Jesus chose Paul later. If Peter had the superior apostolic authority as the first leader over all the church, why didn’t HE just appoint them himself?

One of the best statements from Peter, besides proclaiming the gospel, is this: “But Peter said, “I do not have silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, walk!” (Acts 3:6).” And then, after his authority as an apostle is validated, he gives his a major sermon. What does he have to give? He has the power of God in him through the Holy Spirit; and so did all the other Apostles. This power is transferable in different ways. This man was healed by it, but Stephen was granted the authority of using it, just as Peter could (Acts 6:8). But only an Apostle could grant this apostolic authority (Acts 6:2-6). Once all the Apostles had died, that granting of apostolic authority ceased. That’s why Irenaeus, Polycarp, and the third generation of Church Fathers NEVER could do what Stephen and the Apostles could. Another interesting point is that Ignatius, Papias, and Clement are NEVER recorded as performing miracles either; as though that apostolic authority wasn’t passed on to them.

His boldness in his restored faith (after being massively humbled by God) enables him to proclaim truth in the riskiest situations too (Acts 4). No longer does he deny Jesus and hide behind the scenes.

When it came to the administration of the church in Acts, there are several important things to observe in Acts 4:34-35: “For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales ³⁵ and lay them at the apostles’ feet, and they would be distributed to each to the extent that any had need.“

Peter didn’t make these decisions alone or had any sort of final say. The Apostles all had the same administrative authority granted to them by the congregation because “…great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all.” All the Apostles had great power validating their authoritative testimony about Jesus which then resulted in abundant grace for everyone. That’s why the congregation entrusted them all with authority, and not just with Peter only. Acts 11:29 shows that there still wasn’t a centralized authority figure, even among all the disciples in Antioch.

So powerful is the Holy Spirit that even the Apostle’s shadow could heal. In the full context, all the Apostles were performing miracles, but Peter’s shadow was an example used in the text (Acts 5:12-16). This does NOT imply that Peter was the most powerful, it’s not his power, its God’s.

Back to the Table of Contents

When did Peter move to Rome?

Another point of concern that rightfully should be considered and investigated is the claim that Peter lived in Rome. That’s an odd thing when tradition also teaches that he couldn’t speak Greek and needed Mark to translate for him. Why couldn’t he just speak in lounges, after all, they claim he was the Apostle of Apostles? Despite this logical dilemma, what evidence is there that he even moved to Rome in the first place?

Rom. 1:13: “I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that often I have planned to come to you (and have been prevented so far) so that I may obtain some fruit among you also, even as among the rest of the Gentiles.“

This new and early church in Rome were primarily Gentiles; it’s Rome. Peter was primarily focused on Jewish converts while Paul was primarily focused on Gentile converts (Gal. 2:8); and, Peter didn’t speak Greek. So, already we get the hint that the church in Rome was started with Roman gentiles, a group Peter wasn’t focused on. Which then means this church wouldn’t have been started by Peter. This seems even more likely given that Paul NEVER mentions Peter in his letter to Rome. Nor does he mention Peter coming to visit him when he was under house arrest in Rome. Very problematic for the claim that Peter started the church in Rome or was in Rome. This also poses a problem for Irenaeus who appears to accept a tradition from an apocrypha work.

Peter’s Locations in Holy Scripture

But, let’s analyze the one true and proven reliable source of history: Holy Scripture. Peter’s family originally came from Bethsaida in Galilee (John 1:44), but during the period of Jesus’ ministry Peter lived in Capernaum, at the northwest end of the Sea of Galilee.  It was his home in Capernaum that Jesus visited when he cured Peter’s mother-in-law (Matthew 8:14), and it was Peter’s boat that Jesus used when he instructed the crowd (Luke 5:3).

He went first to the Samaritans (Acts 8:4–17). Then he went to Lydda, in the Plain of Sharon (Acts 9:32–35). Then, at the Mediterranean coastal town of Joppa (Acts 9:36–43). He went farther north on the Mediterranean coast to Caesarea (Acts 10:1–11:18).  The arrest of Peter (Acts 12:1-3) was by King Herod, so we was in the region under Herod’s rule. Peter was visited by an “angel of the Lord.…And the chains fell off his hands,” and he made his escape (Acts 12:1–8). He went immediately to “the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark” (Acts 12:12), which was still not in Rome.

Paul went to Jerusalem to consult with Peter three years after he was converted, and he remained with Peter for two weeks (Galatians 1:18, 19). Galatians 2:7-8 literally tells us that Peter’s mission was focused on the Jews (circumcised) which, again, doesn’t point to a move to Rome where mostly uncircumcised gentiles were.

Peter did travel and do mission work (1 Peter 1:1), but there is no evidence that he traveled as far north west as to Rome and out of Aramaic majority communities, or even completely moved to a new home in Rome. None.

It doesn’t seem that he would have founded the Church in Antioch. It does seems he and others came to visit and support Paul’s plant, because he persisted in and was still strongly influenced by his Jewish traditions and community, of which Paul had to rebuke him for it (Galatians 2:11–14). Also we can even take into account a tradition that Peter only spoke Aramaic and needed Mark to interpret his writings into Greek. This account comes from the early Church Father Papias of Hierapolis, excerpts which have survived through quotations in Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History”. 

Back to the Table of Contents

Paul’s Letter to the Church in Rome

Another striking detail is the fact that Paul never addressed Peter, being in Rome, when he is explicitly writing to the church in Rome. He greets well over 20 people throughout his letter, and never once greets Peter. If Peter is the head of that church, in Rome, why wouldn’t Paul say hi?

Other details in Paul’s letter to the Roman church are also telling. Romans 16:5, 14–15 shows that that there was NO one centralized church in Rome, nor was there one single leader over all the churches in Rome. If Peter founded THE Church in Rome, which one? And, again, if Peter was THE bishop in Rome, why didn’t Paul address him or even mention him at all?

The fact is that Paul does not support the notion of a centralized Roman church founded by Peter.

However, Paul DID point out Peter was focused on the Jewish Christians (Galatians 2:7-9) and maintaining dietary laws and Jewish traditions (Acts 15:20) , which Paul rebuked Peter for not being united with gentiles (Galatians 2:11-14). The churches in Rome clearly rejected Peter’s Jewish Christian traditional requirements (rightfully so) and modeled their churches from Paul’s Letter and not Peter’s leadership.

Paul’s Two Year House Arrest in Rome

In Acts 28 we see that Paul was under house arrest in Rome for 2 years. In 2 years, being in Rome, Peter never once visited him? And never once did Paul write to Peter or mention anything about Peter being in Rome.

Argument from silence fallacy or is there meaningful insight here?

Understand the situation in it’s full context. Peter, being the superior apostolic church administrator; who lived/visited/founded the church in Rome; who was the authoritative elder and shepherd of the church in Rome; doesn’t even get a single mention by Paul or support or encouragement, within such a massive theological letter? As one who was instructed by Christ to “strengthen” his brothers, doesn’t even visit Paul in jail in Rome? He was there for 2 years! That’s an insult, if Peter was in Rome.

That’s like going to a church, ignoring the existence of the lead pastor, and preaching your own sermon in that same church. Is it really a fallacy to think that wouldn’t be insulting, disrespectful, or “stepping on toes“?

Nonbiblical Sources and Traditions

Catholics will point to a letter by a Caius, Presbyter of Rome as proof that Peter was in Rome. Here’s what the letter says:

“And I can show the trophies [monuments] of the apostles. For if you choose to go to the Mons Vaticanus or to the Ostian Road, you will find the trophies [monuments] of those who founded this church.”

The translated word “trophies” just doesn’t cut it. That’s not what people in the Roman Empire called a burial place or grave. Caius was Roman, remember? The right terms are “monument” and “war memorial.” So, that presents a big problem when using Caius’ comment as proof of where Peter was buried. Originally, those monuments were smack dab in the middle of an even older cemetery. When they dug it up in the ’50s, the archaeologists were totally surprised to find no grave and no bones under the tropaion. It was only later that some bones came up from that dig. So, are those Peter’s bones? Well, that seems to be a leap of faith. The Vatican’s official stance, first mentioned back in 1968, is that they might belong to him, but, let us not forget there already existed a burial site there prior to Peter, so, who’s bones are they?

Keep in mind, this account from the later 2nd or mid 3rd century. No where did Caius mention Peter. And when he spoke of “those (plural) who founded this church” it was plural, not singular. That is just a statement of fact, yes, certain apostles kicked off that Church. We can be confident one of them was Paul, because Holy Scripture reveals that much (Acts 27-28). This does not support Peter being IN Rome, as leader of the Roman Church or all the Church at large. Nothing more than later assumptions, over 100 years after Peter.

Sidenote, there was a second site in Rome where pilgrims went for hundreds of years, which was known as the Memoria Apostolorum (the Memorial to the Apostles). It’s off the Via Appia at the modern site of the Catacombs of San Sebastiano. The site preserves around 600 graffiti scrawled by Christian pilgrims in the early Middle Ages, most of them prayers to Peter and Paul, the joint patron saints of Rome where they thought Peter was buried there instead. Who knows.

So, what gave Caius, Presbyter of Rome (and later Middle Ages pilgrims) the idea that Peter was one of the Apostles besides Paul that founded the church in Rome?

Apocryphal Acts of Peter

The earliest referenced used by Catholics to justify Peter in Rome is found in Apocryphal Acts of Peter. First of all, this is an Apocryphal writing, which means it is NOT divinely inspired, not written by Peter, and thus, is known to be theologically inaccurate, fables, fictional stories and not inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore we have to take what this document says not as divine truth, but through the lenses of ancient literature, nothing more.

This could very well be the source of Caius, Presbyter of Rome’s understanding of Peter being in Rome, who then influenced the minds of later pilgrims. They were both written around the same time.

Peter is said to have preached to Herod Agrippa II’s concubines, but Agrippa fled to Rome in 66AD. According to Paul, who died around 64AD, Peter was still in the Aramaic speaking regions of Jerusalem, and leading the Church in Jerusalem with James. Jerusalem wasn’t destroyed by Rome until 70 AD.

In the non-inspired apocryphal Acts of Peter, Peter has a quarrel with Simon Magnus, in Rome. Josephus (1st century Jewish Historian) mentions a magician named Atomus (Simon in Latin manuscripts) as being involved with the procurator Felix, King Agrippa II and his sister Drusilla, where Felix has Simon convince Drusilla to marry him instead of the man she was engaged to. All of which place in Judea, not Rome. The historical inaccuracies of Apocryphal Acts of Peter show that it is not a reliable source of actions and locations of Peter.

With Holy Scripture and objective historical record within or extremely close to the time of the actual events, we can see that the source of the claim of Peter being in Rome is unreliable (the reasoning for Apocryphal Acts of Peter NOT being included in the Bible), causing all others who drew from this unreliable source to be inaccurate as well, such as Caius, Presbyter of Rome, later Middle Ages pilgrims.

Yet, the Catholic Church still use it to justify it’s unproven historical claims.

Peter does make an interesting comment that we should also consider and analyze:

Back to the Table of Contents

Jerome, De Viris Illustribus, para. 8: “Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter wrote a short gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome embodying what he had heard Peter tell. When Peter had heard this, he approved it and published it to the churches to be read by his authority as Clemens in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, record. Peter also mentions this Mark in his first epistle, figuratively indicating Rome under the name of Babylon She who is in Babylon elect together with you salutes you and so does Mark my son”

BUT, using Jerome as the validator of this is not wise. Jerome also utilized traditions only found in apocrypha too and spoke of them as though he felt the were sourced from the Apostles when, in fact, manuscript evidence has revealed otherwise (i.e. Peter’s upside-down crucifixion).

We have to keep in mind that Jerome is writing in at the end of the 4th century, very close to the 5th century. That is well over 300 years after the Apostles and Jerome’s writings are NOT divinely inspired infallible works.

So, to see what exactly Jerome is refering to when he said “Clemens in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes” we find this:

Clement of Alexandria, From the Latin Translation of Cassiodorus, Comments On the First Epistle of Peter: “Marcus, my son, salutes you. Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter publicly preached the Gospel at Rome before some of Cæsar’s equites, and adduced many testimonies to Christ, in order that thereby they might be able to commit to memory what was spoken, of what was spoken by Peter, wrote entirely what is called the Gospel according to Mark.“

What’s odd about this comment are 3 things: 1) Peter didn’t speak Greek; 2) Peter didn’t focus on the gentiles to preach, Paul did; and 3) this is from a Latin translation of Cassidorus, who wrote in the 6th century, around 500 years after Peter. We can’t be sure this is the form in which Jerome read. This seems to come from the Apocryphal Acts of Peter (2nd century) and seems to perpetuate the concepts sourced to the Acts of Peter; which Jerome picks up and perpetuates.

Back to the Table of Contents

Letter to the Romans by Ignatius of Antioch

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans is an epistle attributed to Ignatius of Antioch, an early second-century bishop of Antioch. It is odd that Ignatius is never mentioned by Peter, Paul, or John in any of their writings. Despite this, it does appear that Ignatius had been known to Polycarp who mentioned him ( Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians) around 125AD. Assuming the Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans is completely genuine, he does make a reference to Peter, “I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles (ch. 4)” Here, he places Peter and Paul as having authority and issuing “commandments” to the church in Rome. They have the authority because they are Apostles. But Ignatius does not put one Apostle above the other, but instead puts them as equals, “Peter and Paul.” Thus, this does not support Peter as being THE authority in Rome or an authority over Paul. Nor does Ignatius mention anything about some sort of authoritative see and Papal position of the seat in Rome or a superior position and office that alone Peter fills. Nor does he mention anything about going to be martyred in the same city as Peter. It is equally plausible that Peter did issue or could have issued commands TO the church in Rome, without ever going there, through letters translated by Mark. Again, stating Peter as being IN Rome is still an assumption.

Back to the Table of Contents

 Letter to the Corinthians from Clement of Rome

Clement, however, was mentioned in Holy Scripture in Philippians 4:3 by Paul, not Peter. The 2nd-century Shepherd of Hermas also mentions Clement. Later 3rd century Irenaeus states this about Clement, “In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles.” Clement is validated by Holy Scripture and early church history as one who was close to the Apostles, even a disciple of the Apostles.

This is what he said in his letter: “Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.”

Again, no mention as to how or where Peter lived or where he was martyred. You would think being in Rome and talking about someone “in our own generation” he would include that he saw with his own eyes the exact location where, but, he doesn’t.

During the various times of persecution, Christians looked to the martyrdom of Peter as inspirational. As Clement put it, “let us take the noble examples of our own generation.” Clearly using Peter’s martyrdom as a “noble example” as “pillars [plural] of the Church” who were “persecuted and contended unto death.” He restates again, “the greatest example of endurance” is to give the gospel and testimony of Christ and be persecuted unto death for it. The martyrdom of the apostles “offered among us the fairest example” of endurance. Since Clement is in Rome and Rome is where Paul was brought, as a Roman citizen, to face trial (Peter was not a Roman citizen). And, they know Peter was martyred and knew it wouldn’t be pleasant no matter where he was martyred at.

There are no 1st or 2nd century evidence for Peter living in Rome.

Back to the Table of Contents

Tertullian- Prescription against Heretics

Tertullian was writing in the late 2nd and early 3rd century. He wrote Prescription against Heretics where he states: “as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.”

Now, finally, we have something that points to Peter ordaining Clement to lead the church in Rome. But, this isn’t something new. Paul, in Titus 1:5, instructs Titus to appoint elders to lead their communities. If it was Peter who was in charge of the whole church, why did Paul direct Titus to appoint? Shouldn’t Peter do that? Also in Acts 6:1-6, we see “the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples” (not just Peter) to chose seven men by the community (not Peter) were ordained by “the apostles” (not just Peter).

All Tertullian is doing is confirming the process by which elders/bishops are chosen. This does not state anything about some supreme seat in Rome directing all the affairs of the Church at large, nor state that Peter was even in Rome making the appointments in person. In fact, that even puts John’s authority equal to that of Peter in that John had the same authority to appoint just as Peter did. That’s besides the point. What also is not stated here is Peter living in Rome or being martyred in Rome. These were appointments which could have been made by various means, by the local community and confirmed by letter or traveling and visitations.

Here we see Tertullian really just confirming the processes laid out in Holy Scripture by Paul in Titus 1:5 and in Acts 6 and not validating any sort of location or authority of Peter.

Back to the Table of Contents

Irenaeus and Eusebius list Linus as First Bishop of Rome

Irenaeus (180AD) interestingly states this: “The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy.“(Against Heresies, 3.3.3). Even Irenaeus states that it was the plurality of apostles who founded AND built up the Church in Rome and no mention of Peter alone. Then, he states that Linus was the first appointed bishop to hold the position and office of elder/bishop, not Peter. He does however state this in just one paragraph prior: “indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.” This is an odd thing to say seeing as how Acts shows us that the church wasn’t “organized at Rome” but Jerusalem was the center of decision making and apostolic councils. This isn’t found in Holy Scripture, but in apocryphal works.

Some will argue that Peter, being a bishop, was the first Bishops and then “committed into the hands of Linus” making him the second. But, They also say that the church in Rome was founded by both Peter and Paul. So, if we have 3 elders there, who was first, who was second, and who was third? If first Paul founded it, then Peter arrived later, then appointed Linus, that makes Linus the 3rd Bishop of Rome. Regardless, there were two bishops (Peter and Paul) before Linus, leading Rome.

Irenaeus’ comment that the first bishop of Rome was Linus, is parroted by Eusebius (320AD) in Ecclesiastical History, 3.2. Again, around this time the churches in Rome were growing and needed an overseer and shepherd; this is biblical. This is the reason for the office of Elder/Bishop, to oversee and shepherd the flocks they are appointed to and entrusted with. According to Irenaeus and Eusebius, Linus was the first.

Also, Irenaeus does state this: “Peter appears to have preached in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia to the Jews of the dispersion. And at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer in this way. What do we need to say concerning Paul, who preached the Gospel of Christ from Jerusalem to Illyricum, and afterwards suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero? These facts are related by Origen in the third volume of his Commentary on Genesis.”

So, let us see what Origen said too: “For I am of opinion that there is a certain limit to the powers of human nature, although there may be a Paul, of whom it is said, He is a chosen vessel unto Me; or a Peter, against whom the gates of hell do not prevail; or a Moses, the friend of God (De Principiis; Book III, ch.2, para. 5)” That’s it. Origen only mentions Peter two times in his commentary on Genesis and this can only be the possible related quote Irenaeus is talking about.

That whole story that Irenaeus parrots about Peter coming to Rome and being crucified head-downwards is sourced from Apocryphal Acts of Peter alone. Sadly, Irenaeus records stories from extra-biblical non-inspired sources. Then, as time goes on, this record is utilized by everyone after him.

Irenaeus has stated other things that are questionable and reduce his reliability. In Against Heresies III.1.1 he says this: “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.“

To this day, it us unclear and unknown about this written Gospel in Aramaic. There have been no manuscripts or fragments recovered, nor are there any previous mentions or witness to this prior. Most scholars have determined this to be a misunderstanding, and, an error. Ironically, immediately following that oopsy, he mentions Peter preaching in Rome, which was most likely drawn from an apocryphal work.

Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, epistle to the Romans

Eusebius, in Ecclesiastical History II.25.8 states this: “And that they both [Paul and Peter] suffered martyrdom at the same time is stated by Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in his epistle to the Romans, in the following words: You have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both of them planted and likewise taught us in our Corinth. And they taught together in like manner in Italy, and suffered martyrdom at the same time. I have quoted these things in order that the truth of the history might be still more confirmed“

Here, Eusebius is quoting from Dionysius, bishop of Corinth and potentially his epistle to the Romans which no longer exists or has yet to be rediscovered. Who is Dionysius and is his lost epistle reliable?

Dionysius is ONLY known through Eusebius. No other ancient church father mentions him or quotes him. Everyone else, such as Jerome depends on the quotes from Eusebius. The dates provided by Eusebius we can estimate that he could have been bishop around 170AD. That means Eusebius is quoting a document in his possession that is either 150 years old or he has a copy of a copy of a copy. The only other person to acknowledge his existence in that era is Pinytus, bishop of Knossus, who is also ONLY known through Eusebius.

Interestingly, Dionysius also writes around the same time the Apocryphal Acts of Peter is written. How do we know that Dionysius did not draw his ideas from this source either. After all, even Dionysius was bishop of Corinth 100 years after Paul and Peter lived.

Back to the Table of Contents

Eusebius, in Church History vol. 3, para. 36, written around early 4th century makes this statement: “And at the same time Papias, bishop of the parish of Hierapolis, became well known, as did also Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter, and whose fame is still celebrated by a great many.”

Eusebius states the PETER was the first bishop of Antioch and NOT the bishop of Hierapolis, or of Jerusalem, or of Rome. This sort of muddies the water when it comes to tradition.

Jerome (400AD), and others later only just state that Peter was the first. But they are centuries later and do not provide sources as to why the think he was. It is all assumptions, speculation, and dependence on church legends and fables, which could have be influenced by and sourced from traditions that came from Apocryphal Acts of Peter.

The only sources of Peter being in Rome, founding the Roman church there, and being executed in Rome comes only from Roman Catholic traditions, and not from any objective historically reliable unbiased party or from Holy Scripture itself. Even Peter’s upside-down crucifixion and martyrdom in Rome by Nero are based on only tradition from Apocryphal writings. There is no solid evidence that places Peter in Rome.

The absence of a physical connection between Peter and Rome in the New Testament, the lack of references to him in our earliest Roman Christian literature, and what we know of Peter’s background and character all combine to make it unlikely, that he ever went to Rome.

Apocryphal Acts of Peter was an original written story tradition (probably known to Ignatius of Antioch) of Peter being in Rome that was later used by Caius the Presbyter of Rome, Tertullian, Irenaeus, that was then piggy backed off of by Jerome, Middle Ages pilgrims, and on all the way to today.

Yet, if something of such important significance; why was it never mentioned by Clement (1st century), Papias (1st century), or even by Paul, Peter, John, or recorded by Luke. Not even a letter from Mark who would have most undoubtably known assuming the tradition of Mark being Peter’s translator is true.

Tertullian of Carthage, Prescription against Heretics 36

“Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! Where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s! Where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile!”

Tertullian wrote around the turn of the 3rd century. Again we see the idea of Peter in Rome and being martyred in Rome written maybe 50 years after Apocryphal Acts of Peter but nothing before it.

Back to the Table of Contents

Why Does It Matter Where Peter Lived?

Catholics have stated that it doesn’t matter if Peter lived in Rome or not to be the first Pope. But it very much matters for the sake of the integrity of their tradition. That argument is actually a concession to the fact that there is no real proof that he did live in Rome. It matters because it reflects the reliability of Catholic traditions surrounding the papacy.

They literally claim the spot where they claim he was martyred in Rome. They literally built the St. Peter’s Basilica on that very hill they say it happened. It matters greatly to them and their claim to the reliability and integrity of Catholic traditions.

Majority of Tradition and Unanimity

Another argument Catholics will make as to why it should be believed that Peter founded the church in Rome and was martyred there is simply because certain ancient church fathers discussed above, say so. Well, considering their writings are not divinely inspired and infallible, stating what they all say because they all read each others claims, by blind faith is unwise. The only thing we can and should have blind faith in is Holy Scripture.

One angle for their uniform acceptance of being so closely associated to Peter and Paul is for the validation that they are a church based on apostolic authoritative teachings. But this is also the same reason why throughout history people invited later writings and attached an apostles name to it, for creditability, even though we know now that they could not have written the apocrypha writings with their names on it.

We know those pseudo-autographical apocrypha documents weren’t from them, such as the Acts of Peter, when we analyze other historical evidences and not just take their word for it. When we use the same analysis, it does question the reliability of their claims.

It is not unanimous because it is not supported by Holy Scripture, the most important and only infallible witness. It is not unanimous because all the later writings are dependent on less than a handful of comments in an earlier period well after the Apostles and at the end of the 2nd century.

One single document, Acts of Peter, may very well be the source of all the commentary and belief of this tradition. Then, based on this source, all the writers after took that tradition and ran with it. Gaius of Rome, probably aware of the Acts of Peter, then looked for what seemed to be Peter’s grave based on what fit the Acts of Peter, 150 years after Peter. Then, Constantine continued and further developed this tradition encouraged by Eusebius further by making that grave chosen by Gaius the centerpiece, 250 years after Peter. Then, pilgrims being taught this tradition then graffiti the spot with related words and markings, which is used today to justify the tradition. In 1968 Pope Paul VI declared that the relics of St. Peter had been discovered and identified, almost 2,000 years after Peter. But, that’s the point, the only way for Pope Paul VI to know if that was even true is he would have to ultimately depend on the tradition of the Acts of Peter to associate the bones to Peter. Keep in mind, that was already a burial spot so of course there were bones there of people from the 1st century. It is arguable that the tradition is only unanimously consistent during and after the popularity of the Acts of Peter.

The Facts:

• Peter was an Apostle, called after his brother Andrew.
• Peter had a strong and assertive personality, but was prideful and impulsive
• Jesus never gives Peter a leadership title or formal official designation of
• The Apostles never give Peter a leadership title or official endorsement of
• Peter is never given preeminence or superiority over the other Apostles.
• Peter’s personality traits and characteristics do not assume apostolic superiority
• Peter was greatly humbled by Jesus
• Peter called himself a “fellow Elder”
• There is no direct or explicit reliable evidence of Peter living in Rome but only later assumed in the late 2nd early 3rd century.
• Earliest source evidence of Peter in Rome comes from an Apocrypha uninspired and historically problematic document.
• Paul in his letter to Rome and while under house arrest in Rome for 2 years never mentions Peter.
• There is no 1st century evidence for Peter in Rome or as a superior apostle
• The idea of Peter in Rome starts in the same era as the Apocrypha uninspired and historically problematic document.
• 2nd Century church fathers do not give Peter sole eldership authority over all the church but always put him equal to Paul or generally refer to all the apostles together.
• Peter was never called the first Pope until centuries later.