Did Jesus Build His Church on Peter? Was Peter the 1st Pope? (Matthew 16:18)

Peter’s confession concerning Jesus stemmed from receiving what the already existing Scriptures taught. After Peter had confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, we read the following.

Matthew 16:17-19: “And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The word in the Greek text of the New Testament for the rock on which Jesus said He would build His church is Petra. That is a different word than the name he gave Simon Barjona (Petros). Peter is the English form of Petros.

Catholic apologists have argued that since Jesus likely originally said these words in Aramaic, He would have used the word kepha in both instances (kepha means “rock” in Aramaic). Yet that is not certain. And even if that is so, the language in which the original texts were written matters. Each New Testament book was originally written in Koine Greek. Truths might be communicated therein which other languages may not be able to communicate as well.

Catholic apologists say that Peter is both the Petra and the Petros in Matthew 16:18. However, the New Testament never uses the Greek word Petros besides as a reference to Simon Peter. Yet it uses the word Petra 15 times in 13 different verses besides its disputed use in Matthew 16:18. Not one of those other 15 uses of Petra is a reference to Simon Peter. Yet several are a reference to Jesus. The following are definite references to Jesus as Petra in the Greek text.

Romans 9:33: “As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock (Petra) of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.”

1 Corinthians 10:4: “And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock (Petra) that followed them: and that Rock (Petra) was Christ.”

When the New Testament speaks of great rocks, it often uses Petra though it never uses Petros. Lithos (lee-thos)is a more general word for a rock or stone of any size. Lithos is applied to Jesus as well as to believers in Him. Jesus is even called a Lithos and a Petra in the very same verse in both Romans 9:33 and 1 Peter 2:8.

The Biblical Apostles and Prophets are foundations to the household of God while Jesus Christ Himself is the chief cornerstone. As an Apostle, Peter is foundational to Jesus’ church- yet he is surely not its chief cornerstone.

Ephesians 2:18-20: “For through him (Jesus) we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.”

In ancient construction, the chief cornerstone was the biggest, strongest, and most critical stone in a structure. The chief cornerstone of a building determined the angle, position, and alignment of the whole building. All other stones were set in relation to it. Removing the chief cornerstone would cause the whole building to become unstable and lead to its collapse. Removing a single foundation stone that was not the chief cornerstone would not guarantee the building’s collapse though that would likely compromise its structure. A building could even survive with a cornerstone missing as long as that was not the chief cornerstone. Most stones in a building’s foundation were not even cornerstones at all.

Ephesians 2:20 also refutes the claim of some that Jesus is the builder of His church yet not part of the building as well. He is rather both the builder and the chief cornerstone of His church.

Peter himself says the following to Christians (for each of the references to stones and to rocks here, I’ll mention the Greek word which is used).

1 Peter 2:4-8: “To whom coming, as unto a living stone (lithos), disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones (lithos), are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone (lithos), elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone (lithos) which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone (lithos) of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed (my note- they are appointed to stumble- they are not appointed to be disobedient- Peter isn’t teaching Calvinism).”

Therefore, even if the doubtful claim of the Catholic apologists were taken for granted and it were to be conceded that Jesus is saying that He would build His church upon Peter in Matthew 16:18, this would only mean that Peter would be a foundation stone to Christ’s church along with the other true Apostles and Prophets. It would be not sufficient reason to say that Peter is the most critical rock of Jesus’ church or that Peter was given authority as a pope figure over the other Apostles.

Jesus is surely the chief cornerstone, the great Rock, which His true church is built upon. Peter is equally foundational to the other Apostles who are all lesser building stones in the foundation.

Revelation 21:14 says (concerning the New Jerusalem): “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

There is no warrant then to say that Peter was the first Pope. Peter never asserted any papal authority within the Bible in spite of calling himself an elder and an Apostle within his Biblical epistles. The debates among splinter groups from the Catholic Church over who the legitimate Pope is, or whether there is even a legitimate Pope at all now, are irrelevant due to how the Bible does not teach that Peter was the first Pope nor does it give legitimacy to any papal office at all.

Just because Jesus told Peter that he was granted the keys of the kingdom of heaven does not mean that the other Apostles were not as well. This is even something which can be verifiably measured.

1 Corinthians 3:10-11 (the Apostle Paul wrote 1 Corinthians): “According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

Peter and Paul were both Apostles. Did the Apostle Paul not also have the keys of the kingdom of heaven? Was he competing with Peter? Of course not. He was simply speaking of himself in the way that he would speak of the other Apostles in relation to the churches which they had personally planted. Note how Paul did not view Peter as a special authority figure above the other Apostles.

Galatians 2:9-10: “And when James, Cephas (that is, Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen (the Gentiles), and they unto the circumcision (the Jews). Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.”

Note also how Peter spoke of Paul’s epistles as teaching the same things as his epistles taught and how he regarded them as equally authoritative.

2 Peter 3:15-16: “And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest (or, twist), as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

Peter being given the keys of the kingdom of heaven is obviously directly connected to the phrase “and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Having the keys of the kingdom of heaven, with the binding and loosing involved in the use of those keys, involved forming and defining Christian doctrine for their generation and for all following generations. Jesus’ Apostles defined the Christian faith in the New Testament. He told them that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth in John 16:13. That has now happened. The authentic Christian faith is set forth in the Bible and is available for whosoever will to understand and walk in. That would not be the case if the gates of hell had prevailed against Christ’s true church. Yet the multiple Pagan elements and other unscriptural innovations in the Catholic Church demonstrate that it cannot be rightfully said that the gates of hell have not prevailed against it.

Christian doctrine did not even have to be formed from scratch in the first century. Christianity is built on the Old Testament Scriptures. However, there was a change in the ceremonial law and changes in the arrangement of congregational worship in the New Covenant. Though these are things which were even foretold in the Old Testament to happen eventually, the specifics still had to be revealed and implemented. This is something which the other Apostles of Christ were involved in as well as Peter. They were given special revelation by the Holy Spirit regarding the appropriate timing to loose the Christian church from the Mosaic ceremonies along with wisdom to properly bind the things in the Law of Moses which Christians are not released from.

To get a practical example of this, look at the council held in Acts chapter 15. The one who gave the sentence at the Acts 15 council was James (who was probably the local overseer of the Jerusalem church and had precedence when the church at Jerusalem was gathered together). Peter was a very key figure at the Acts 15 council and in the events leading up to that. Yet he surely did not have full, supreme, and universal power over the whole church like the Catholic Church Catechism teaches regarding the Pope.