Matthew 16:18

Back to The Bible's Difficult Scriptures Explained!

“And I say also unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

This verse is central Catholic theology regarding the authority of popes, who are said to derive their authority from Christ’s supposed empowerment of Peter, and thus his successors. This passage is thought to designate Peter as the first pope.

Breaking down the important Greek words within this verse makes it easier to understand: Peter comes from petros (Greek #4074 Strong’s) meaning a piece of rock, but either bigger or smaller than a stone (Greek lithos #3037 Strong’s). Rock comes from petra (Greek #4073 Strong’s) meaning a mass of rock, usually very large.

Peter was a small rock. Jesus Christ is the large rock, or foundation stone of the Church He built. Christ is distinguishing between the two. Proof that the mass of rock is Christ can be found in I Corinthians 10:4, Ephesians 2:20, Matthew 7:24 and 16:13-16.

Understand that Christ is the great Rock that the Church is built upon. This verse is absolutely not saying that Peter is a rock or that the Church is built on him. I Corinthians 3:11 shows there can be only one foundation (Christ), not two. This applies to Peter’s role. Ephesians 4:11-12 explains that apostles (Peter, Paul, John, etc.) were merely in offices that Christ established to serve His Church. Collectively, with the prophets, they form part of the Church’s foundation—with Christ (Eph. 2:20).

Think of Christ as complimenting Peter. Then there is this: If He had established him as the first (infallible) pope, how could Peter almost immediately have fallen into what Christ labeled a satanic attitude in the very next verses, 21 to 23? Would such an attitude be possible for one who was infallible? Also, there is this question: How could Peter have later denied Christ three times?

Here are ten proofs that Peter was never at Rome—and therefore could not have been the first pope:

(1) Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles (Rom. 15:16; Gal. 2:7) not Peter. Rome was a Gentile city.

(2) The Emperor Claudius had banished all Jews from Rome in A.D. 50 (also see #9 below).

(3) Peter went to Babylon—in Mesopotamia (I Pet. 5:13).

(4) Paul would never have written what he did in Romans 1 (the book was written in A.D. 55), Ro 1:11 and 15—clear insults to Peter if he had been faithfully serving there for thirteen previous years (from A.D. 42), particularly if it had been as pope. Actually, a “Peter,” Simon Magus (see the account in Acts 8), was there. It was this Simon (not Simon Peter) who was the Pater (or Peter), which means “a father.” (Paternity and patriarch come from this word.) Simon Magus was already by this time the leading figure in the early apostate church at Rome.

(5) Romans 15:20—Paul declared that he would not preach (or write) upon any other man’s foundation. Yet, Paul wrote the letter to the Romans. Thus, Peter could not have laid the foundation of the Roman congregation.

(6) Romans 16 contains thirty different salutations, yet Peter, supposedly the resident “pope” there, was not greeted by Paul. Think of what a grievous slight this would have been had he been present. Paul’s epistle did not even acknowledge Peter.

(7) Galatians 1:18-19 and 2:7 demonstrate that Peter was based at Jerusalem, from where he periodically traveled to places like Bithynia, Northern Galatia and Babylon, and other places where Israelites (also see #9) had migrated, from A.D. 38 to A.D. 49—the dates of these events described in Galatians.

(8) Luke 22:24—If Peter was already designated to be the future pope, why did the disciples argue among themselves about which of them was the greatest?

(9) Galatians 2:7 reveals that Peter took the gospel to “the circumcision”—the Jews, and the other tribes of Israel, referenced in #7. (See Matthew 10:5-6.)

(10) II Timothy 4:10-11 mentions that Paul wrote from Rome and records that “only Luke was with him.” This eliminates Peter.