Perverters of the Scripture Part 1 Was Peter the first Pope?   MATTHEW 16:16-19 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 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. 19 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. Later, Jesus also gave this same promise to the rest of his disciples. MATTHEW 18:18 18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.   Was Peter really the first Pope? WHAT CATHOLICS BELIEVE Roman Catholics believe that in the preceding Bible verses the Lord Jesus Christ chose Simon Peter to become the visible head of his Church on the earth, or the first Pope. They maintain that because of Simon Peter's declaration of Christ as the Son of the living God, he showed himself to be more faithful than the other disciples and thus set himself apart as the only one worthy of such authority. Also, by giving the other disciples the same command to bind and loose, Christ was intending to build a future system of apostles (cardinals, bishops, priests, deacons, etc) UNDER the authority of Peter, or his chosen successors. If the Catholic Church is confident of this position, then it should be fair for us to ask several questions before we agree with them.   WAS PETER THE TRUE ROCK? 1. If so, why didn't Jesus Christ say it more than once, or clarify it better? (Matt 18:16, II Corinthians 13:1) This subject is still debated by Catholic and Protestant writers alike. One has to admit, that if Christ was making Peter the first Pope, he didn't exactly say so. 2. If so, why did Jesus address Peter as Satan merely four verses later in the same chanter? (Look at verse 23) "But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." Even if we concede that Jesus was addressing the Devil, who was using Simon Peter, it is still not a very encouraging way to speak to the man you've just put in charge of your Church. 3. If so, why did no other person in the New Testament acknowledge Peter as the Pope? We should reasonably expect at least one other person in the Bible to have known about it. Yet, there is not one word said about it by any Christian anywhere. Not even by the other apostles! 4. If so, why did Peter seem to be unaware of his own new promotion, instead of worrying about John getting ahead?(John 21:20-23) Peter was clearly wondering if Christ intended to give a special blessing to John but not to anyone else. The Lord Jesus told Peter in effect, "Follow thou me," and to mind his own business. 5. If so, why did Peter have to be publicly rebuked by Paul for false teaching (Galatians 2:12-14), and not the other way around? It would certainly not serve the purpose of establishing an authoritative chain of command to have a traveling evangelist correcting the Prince of Apostles and then make a point of writing to others about it. 6. If so, why did Peter only write two modest epistles, yet Paul wrote fourteen? Peter Paul I Peter II Peter Romans I Corinthians II Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians I Thessalonians II Thessalonians I Timothy II Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews  In fact, Peter tells his readers that Paul's letters were scripture, written "according to the wisdom given unto him" by the Lord (II Peter 3:15-16). By far, the undisputed teacher of the New Testament church was the Apostle Paul, not Simon Peter. 7. If so, why did Christ say that his church would not be patterned after worldly hierarchies (Matt 20:25-28), which the Catholic Church clearly is? The fact that the Vatican is the smallest actual country in the world, receiving and sending foreign ambassadors, operating its own public works systems; electricity, water, power, library, coinage, police; and meddling in the governmental affairs, laws, and elections of other nations shows that it is a political monster foreign to the New Testament. The Pope, as the visible head of the Catholic Church, controls more wealth than any ten billionaires in the world combined! Peter confessed, "Silver and gold have I none" (Acts 3:6) 8. If so, why did Peter get replaced by Paul as the most prominent Christian in the New Testament? Peter preached a powerful sermon on the Day of Pentecost resulting in the conversion of 3000 Jews in one day. Yet, by the end of the Book of Acts, it's surprising that people weren't asking "Peter who?" (Acts 2, Peter------------------------Paul, Acts 28)   Jerusalem                                  Rome and beyond 9. Lastly, if Peter was the rock, why did the apostle Paul call Christ the ROCK (1 Corinthians 10:4), the only FOUNDATION (1 Corinthians 3: 11), and Peter himself called Christ the CHIEF CORNER STONE (1 Peter 2:6)? How many Rocks does the New Testament church really need? For any honest Christian, between Peter and the Lord Jesus Christ, the choice is clear. CONCLUSION There is not one single verse in the entire Bible suggesting Peter was made the first Pope by Jesus Christ. The papacy is not even based upon Matthew 16: 18, but only on the Catholic Church's private interpretation of Matthew 16:18. It has no supporting testimony from the Bible whatsoever. Moses clearly summarized it: "For their rock is not as our Rock" (Deuteronomy 32:31)