Why do Catholics Think Christ Made Peter the First Pope?
Why do Catholics think Jesus made Peter the first pope? Because the Bible says so, though admittedly subtly to our Jewish-unlearned modern minds.
This was plain to first century Jews because it has to do with the Old Testament, which Christians now often don’t value enough to study, which includes the foreshadowing that explains almost everything Jesus did in His ministry.
In Matthew 16:18–18, Jesus tells Simon, “Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Christians have since the very beginning understood this to mean Peter was Christ’s prime minister who could teach with His infallible, heavenly authority once He left earth. Why? Because Christ was almost verbatim quoting an Old Testament verse in which the Davidic King does the same exact thing for his prime minister, who ruled in his stead once he left.
Isaiah 22 reads:
“On that day I will summon my servant
Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
I will clothe him with your robe,
gird him with your sash,
confer on him your authority.
He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
and to the house of Judah.
I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder;
what he opens, no one will shut,
what he shuts, no one will open.”
In Isaiah, we see a system in place in which the Davidic king, which Christ is the fulfillment of, places the ‘keys of the kingdom’ on the shoulder of the prime minister. He would literally keep the giant keys to the gate around his neck, and ‘what he opens, none shall shut, what he shuts, none shall open.” The language is obviously being referred to by Christ in Matthew’s gospel, but not only that, it is being elevated to a heavenly status. As always, when Christ fulfills things He brings them to a elevated level, a heavenly level. The language also is referring to an authoritative position (the door-shutting metaphors). Finally, notice what he is called: “a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” He is a father to the people of God, which is exactly what the office of the pope claims to be.
Some think that Christ was calling Himself the rock. First of all, this doesn’t make sense, because why would He call upon Peter at this moment if He were just referring to Himself? It doesn’t matter ultimately, because the Greek/Aramaic reveals the truth of the matter. In Aramaic, the word Kepha is used for BOTH Peter’s name, and the word “rock,” meaning Christ was clearly referring to him. Christ spoke Aramaic.
The Greek shows the same thing: the two words used are different in Greek, but only to account for the masculine and feminine conjugations (Peter, being masculine (petros), rock being feminine by itself (petra)). Surely Matthew would not refer to Peter as being a female, so he had to use such words. The fact that Matthew used proper grammar doesn’t mean the words being different mean Peter wasn’t being referred to. It’s clear he was.
And then there’s the obvious: Peter is ALWAYS referred to first out of the 12 apostles, and he’s clearly Christ’s best friend and most close of even of the inner 3 (James, John, and Peter). John, Christ’s beloved disciple, waits for him at the tomb of Jesus, showing he has a sort of authority over him. Everyone becomes quiet for Peter’s authoritative decision regarding circumcision at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 10). Peter is the apostle referred to the most in the Bible, by far, and his name is always listed first, with Judas always dead last, showing they are listed in a specific order for good reason.
Name changes in the Bible always denote a special, unique role given by God (think Abram-Abraham).
There’s so much more evidence…but lastly consider this: In John 10, Jesus says a few key things. “Whoever enters through the gate is the shepherd of the sheep.”;
“I am the good shepherd.”;
“There will be one flock, one shepherd.”
Compare this to John 21, where Jesus tells Peter that he, Peter is the shepherd, and that he is supposed to feed and tend the sheep of Christ.
But Christ said there is one shepherd. Did He contradict Himself? No, he was showing that He is the ‘high shepherd,’ but He also appointed Peter to be the shepherd on earth once He ascended, to tend His sheep in His place.
Even the language of us being sheep points toward the necessity of a pope-like figure for us to look towards for teaching and guidance. You might think “Christ is the only leader we need,” But wouldn’t that mean you wouldn’t need a pastor? That would be absurd to think.
Also, I think the state of Christianity shows that Christ did not intend to fill that role, because if He did, it would mean He failed, since there is such a remarkable amount of division among Christians regarding what to believe that the Bible teaches. Surely Christians don’t believe Jesus is such a bad shepherd as that. He is God, so He couldn’t be. This means He couldn’t have intended to be.
It makes much more sense to believe that Christ intended for His appointed shepherd, Peter, to ‘fill in’ for Him for awhile, and instead, many rejected him (the pope, Peter’s successor), and that is what caused so much division.
St. Cyprian, the Bishop of Carthage, who lived A.D. 200–258 wrote about the Papacy (the name for the office of the pope), calling it “The throne of Peter…from whom no error can flow” (Epistle 54:14).
St. Ignatius of Antioch, sometime before he was martyred in 110 AD, told his readers: “Follow the bishop even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery [priests] as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.” He also said “Submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ” and referred to the Roman Church as the one that teaches other churches and “presides in love” over them (Letter to Trallians 2:1).
Eusebius of Caesarea, trusted Church historian valued as authoritative on most subjects regarding the early Church, wrote in A.D. 303, “[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years” (The Chronicle [303]).
