Articles
Is The Office of the Pope Biblical?
One of the beliefs that comprise the very core of the Catholic church is the office of the pope. So quintessential is this supreme position to the Catholic faith that it is no stretch to say he is the very embodiment of the church itself. When one has this magnitude of impression over a body of believers numbered well over 1 billion with billions more correlating him directly with the entire Christian faith, it becomes immensely important to understand where this office originates from. However, when it comes to finding Biblical support for the papacy there is surprisingly little to draw from. It is at this point we must ask a vital question, is the papacy Biblical? To be more precise we must know if the Bible commands, or at least allows, a single man to be the head over the entire church.
Using the Scriptures we can gain greater insight into the office of the pope by asking three simple questions: what is the basis for papal authority, what does the OT foretell of this position, and what does the NT teach regarding the authority of Peter, the alleged first pope? We will also take a step back and ask a broader question, is the pope even necessary?
Before we begin in earnest there are two things that should be mentioned prior to entering the fray of our main topic. Firstly, there can be no doubt that the papacy has been spoken of innumerable times throughout the centuries. Many passionate writings state the legitimacy of the papacy in many creative ways, but that does not address our current topic. If one wishes to prove that the office of pope is the will of God, then he will have to use the Word of God to prove it. Rationalization through extrabiblical sources does not confirm Scriptural papal authority, but shows instead that one does not accept Scriptural authority. This is a closely related issue but not the current one at hand. Secondly, this article by no means is an all-encompassing study of the many flaws and errors regarding the pope, which itself is but a drop in the bucket of problems regarding the Catholic church as a whole. With those things out of the way let us begin by examining the very basis for the existence of the papacy.
- What is the basis for papal authority?
There are only a few passages that are used to support the papacy, but the primary argument comes from Matthew 16:13-20. Specifically singled out is verse 18, “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church”. A quick search reveals that Peter comes from the Greek word Petros, which means “rock”. According to this interpretation, Peter is the rock which Jesus states the church will be built upon.
The problem with this conclusion comes from assuming that the rock that Peter is named for and the rock that supports the church are the same. This is not the case. The Greek used here shows distinction between the two rocks. The first rock is Petros (translated in English to Peter), the masculine form of rock. The second rock is petra, which takes the feminine form. Differentiation of the gendering of the word changes what the word means. Petros is a piece of rock that is separate from a larger body. The idea is a small stone or pebble, like one that can get stuck in a shoe or skipped across a pond. Petra is quite different. It is a large mass of natural rock, which may take the form of a protruding cliff, a cave, or stony ground. While both mean rock, they are distinct from one another. No one ever takes a rock from his shoe and describes it as a cliff. Conversely, a pebble does not make a logical choice for a building’s foundation. The Bible is filled with various wordplay such as this which helps to reinforce the intended message it is conveying.
Scripture is also consistent in the proper usage of these terms. Petros is only ever used in respect to the name of Peter specifically. Petra is predominantly used in its direct meaning; examples of this include: the wise man building his house on the rock (Matthew 7:24-25), the rock where some of the seed fell (Luke 8:6,13), and the rock that Joseph’s tomb was made from (Mark 16:46). Interestingly there are a few instances where petra is used figuratively. In those cases the figure of speech refers directly to Jesus as the Rock. The clearest example of this occurs in 1 Corinthians 10:4, where Paul plainly states, “that Rock was Christ”.
Those arguing from the Catholic doctrine have a difficult task in acknowledging this distinction. They must prove that the use of two separate words with separate meanings are actually the same word, or somehow share the same meaning. Even if it were possible to do so they would then have to justify this contradiction with the rest of Scripture.
Another approach consists of attempting to bypass the Greek language altogether by stating that this conversation took place while speaking Aramaic. The word for rock in this language is kephas, where Peter’s other name originates (Cephas). So, if the conversation of Matthew 16 takes place in Aramaic, then we now get the phrase “And I also say to you that you are kephas (rock), and on this kephas (rock) I will build my church”. Two issues arise when this idea is introduced. The first being that it is simply impossible to prove. The second and more significant is that it is an accusation of either error or blatant falsehood against the Holy Spirit through Matthew. The basic implication is that the account as written is at best incorrect and at worst a lie. As with the other Catholic defenses of papal authority based on this passage, the only way this explanation could work would mean simultaneously unraveling the consistency and coherency of the rest of Scripture.
- Does the Old Testament speak about the pope?
The many books of the OT excellently lay out the divine plan of salvation of mankind. Sin is revealed for the abhorrence that it is, something which separates the pinnacle of God’s creation from His pure and holy presence. The steps to correct this man-made separation are made known. The key component of the plan is a figure known as Messiah. This Messiah would be the one to fully reunite the human race with their Creator. One aspect of that reuniting will be the Messiah’s establishment of a kingdom that will last forever. The NT documents the accomplishment of the Messiah’s mission and fulfillment of the many prophecies describing the Messiah and His kingdom. These prophecies foretold many things, including the herald who would announce that the Messiah was now among them. But as all of this has occurred and been fulfilled we must return to our topic and ask, where among the writings and prophecies of the OT do we find evidence for one who would take charge of the kingdom in the place of the Messiah? The reality is that we cannot find this evidence, because it is not there.
The OT is so packed with prophecy that it helps paint a distinct picture of what to expect the Messiah to do. Everything from the place and circumstances of His birth, to describing His divine mission to establish His kingdom. We have even been told His arrival on earth would be preceded by one who would prepare the way. This of course was the man we know as John the Baptist. So if we have received clear prophecy of Jesus’ immediate predecessor in John, why then is there no indication or prophecy regarding the role of the supposed successor of Christ to lead His newfound kingdom? The simple answer is that Christ always has been and will never cease to be the sole ruler of His kingdom. Isaiah stated in chapter 9 that His government would rest upon His shoulders (for He is as strong as petra) and once He establishes it, it will be forever upheld by Him alone.
This response may seem overly dismissive considering that it is possible to pick out verses or passages from the OT that seem to support the eventual establishment of the papal office. These selections however, suffer from a lack of context and/or will hyperfocus on a single word or phrase in an effort to inevitably connect it to another passage (probably Matthew 16) in hopes that it can be better defended from there.
- What does the NT teach regarding Peter, the alleged first pope?
Consistent with the OT writers, the various NT writers also fail to mention the authority that was supposed to reside in Peter after the establishment of the church. This will not be an attempt to downplay the faith and leadership that is clearly demonstrated by the Apostle Peter. It is rather to put on display the fact that even such a one highly regarded as Peter was not treated as the head of the church, nor did he act in such a way himself.
The Gospel writers Matthew, Mark, and Luke all recorded an event that shortly followed the great confession of Peter. It was an argument that occurred between all of the disciples concerning which of them was and would be the greatest in the kingdom among the 12 of them. Unable to reach a consensus among themselves they ask Jesus which one it will be. If the disciples had the same belief as Catholic doctrine, then Jesus would have every right to become frustrated, possibly saying “Were none of you paying attention when I declared it to be Peter?”. This does not happen. In fact the answer is that none of them is the greatest, at least not with their current prideful attitudes.
After the official establishment of the church there may be expected a shift in how others act towards Peter (as well as how Peter himself acts) since he should have, by this point, fully received his authority as sole head of the church. But again we see that this is not the case. Galatians chapter 2 details an occurrence where Peter is guilty of not only acting as a hypocrite but through his poor example he led others to join in his hypocrisy. Paul confronts Peter on this issue face to face and in a public setting. Paul is not corrected or admonished for teaching Peter this important lesson. Another example from Paul’s writings can be seen in 1 Corinthians 3. Here we find Paul referring to the church as “God’s building”. Being like a wise master builder, Paul will only use the one foundation that can successfully support God’s building. This foundation has already been laid out and of course is Jesus Christ. So it is evident that the Apostle Paul did not accept any authority that was not Jesus, but he was not alone in this understanding.
Peter himself not once in Scripture portrays any conception that he is head of the church. This is not merely a demonstration of humility; if he had the supreme role of Christ’s successor on earth to unerringly lead the church, it would not compromise his humility to say so. It would be a simple statement of fact. In both of Peter’s letters he simply describes himself as one of the apostles. Nothing more is stated or implied. An important acknowledgement he does make is toward Jesus in 1 Peter 2. In verses 6 and 8 he quotes Messianic statements from the prophet Isaiah. He speaks of the Messiah as a precious stone in verse 6. Then in verse 8 that same stone is called a “stone of stumbling” (for those who disbelieve and are disobedient, as well as becoming to them a “rock of offense”. Yet again we see the term petra used for rock. So what we get from this passage is Peter himself attesting to Jesus being this rock.
- Is the pope necessary for the functioning of the church?
Catholic doctrine states that the pope is the great spiritual leader of the church. (https://www.churchauthority.org/blueprint/pope.asp) He provides guidance and insight to help the church carry out the will of God. Our final query will be to see if a pope is necessary to carry out these objectives. To do this we will briefly examine two other aspects of spiritual guidance given to the church. These will be the Holy Spirit and the Word. A brief and non-exhaustive list will show functions for each and then we can see if there are things that a pope can perform which the other two cannot.
Functions of the Holy Spirit in the church
- Teaches man the wisdom of God. (1 Cor 2:12-13)
- Bears witness and makes heirs of God through Christ (Gal 4:6-7, Rom 8:14-17)
- Dwells within His people. (1 John 4:13, James 4:5)
- Makes intercession on our behalf in prayer. (Rom 8:26-27)
- Helper and Teacher of the church, bringing to remembrance the words of Christ. (John 14:25-26)
- Provides guidance into the truth. (John 16:13)
- Is received by all believers. (John 7:37-39)
Functions of the Word in the church
- Allows us to be born again and gives the sustenance needed to grow spiritually. (1 Pet 1:23-2:2)
- Saves our souls. (James 1:21)
- With its living power, it discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Heb 4:12)
- Makes wise for salvation. Effective for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction. Makes us complete and equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:14-17)
With all these things being done for and made available to every single member of Christ’s church, what could be left that would make the role of pope necessary for the church? God has provided His saints with more than they could ever need to serve Him as He commands. The office of pope was made redundant before it was ever conceived.
Let us then summarize what we have found before returning to the primary question at hand. The main Scripture used to establish papal authority – Matthew 16:18 – does not support that belief. Prophecies of the OT did not foretell of any successor to come after the Messiah. The writers of the NT did not acknowledge the existence of the office of the pope. And the spiritual guidance established by God for the church shows that a pope is not even necessary. After a brief study of the Scriptures we can answer our initial question. Is the papacy Biblical? We have seen that the answer is no, the Bible in no way supports the office or even the idea of the pope.
