p. 231 | PETER WAS NOT A POPE by G. W. Caviness

Pacific Press Publishing Association · Mountain View, California · Apr 13, 1915

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 42, No. 15.

PETER WAS NOT A POPE

By G. W. Caviness

Christ Forbade Popes—Paul Recognized No Such Thing—Peter Himself Condemns It James and Not Peter Presided in the Church

By G. W. Caviness

ONE of the strongest arguments the Roman Catholics use to prove that theirs is the only true apostolic church, is that the succession of popes begins with Peter, one of the twelve disciples.

When the disciples were discussing among themselves as to who should be the first, and head of the rest, Christ reproved them. He reminded them of the fact that the scribes and the Pharisees always tried to call attention to themselves by dressing in long robes and by claiming the first seats in public gatherings. They also loved to be called rabbi, or master, and each sought for himself the first place.

Christ taught His disciples just the opposite of this conduct, and said: “Be not ye called rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” Matt. 23:8.

CHRIST FORBADE A POPE

In this text, Christ positively forbids His disciples to call any one of their number father, or pope. So the disciples never could call Peter pope without disobeying this clear and unequivocal command of Jesus Christ. It is no less true that the Roman Catholics disobey this strict command of the Master when they elect one as head of the church, and call him pope, or holy father.

PAUL RECOGNIZED NO POPE

The apostle Paul certainly never considered Peter as a pope, and head of the church. Speaking of his own calling to the work of the Lord, he says, “Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead.)” Gal. 1:1. The great apostle to the gentiles distinctly says that he is not an apostle by the will of men. He received his call and his authority direct from Jesus Christ. In verses 11, 12 he says: “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” Not only his calling, but his understanding of the gospel, came from God, through a study of the sacred Scriptures.

It is true that Paul preached the same gospel the other disciples preached, but he did not receive it from them. As he says further on in the same chapter, “When it pleased God . . . to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.” Verses 15-19.

PETER ADDED NOTHING TO PAUL

From this it is evident that Paul, after three years of preaching, did go to Jerusalem, and saw Peter and James, and was with them fifteen days; but he says emphatically that they added nothing to him by way of doctrine or of authority. In the following chapter, verse 6, he says, “They who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me.” Those who appeared to be pillars of the church he mentions, in verse 9, as James and Peter and John, and adds that when they heard of his work among the gentiles, they gave the right hand of fellowship to him and Barnabas.

PAUL PUBLICLY REPROVES PETER

After saying that he received nothing from the other disciples in Jerusalem, Paul tells us that Peter came to Antioch, where Paul and Barnabas had raised up a church. At first Peter mingled with the gentiles, and ate with them; but when some other Jews from Jerusalem came there, Peter separated himself from the gentiles, and began to practice his Jewish exclusiveness. When Paul saw how Peter acted, he took occasion to reprove him before the whole church. He says, “When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” Verse 11. It appears that Peter accepted the reproof as just, for he made no defense of his conduct, and never found any fault with Paul for having reproved him. When he speaks of Paul in his second epistle, chapter 3, verse 15, he calls him “our beloved brother Paul.” Peter was Christian enough to receive reproofs and profit by them, and never considered himself the head of the church, or above reproof. From this episode, we see clearly that Paul never looked upon Peter as the pope, or head of the church.

Only imagine a pope of the present day permitting a cardinal or a bishop to reprove him publicly! The popes of our time think it is their business to reprove everybody else, and that no one should dare to reprove them in any sense.

JAMES AND NOT PETER PRESIDED

Later on, there arose difficulties in the church, among the gentiles; and in order that there might be harmony between Jewish and gentile believers, Paul and Barnabas desired to bring the matter before the church in Jerusalem. A council was called. The disciples and the elders and all the church in Jerusalem were present. James presided in the council. Various brethren spoke in turn, and there was a full and free discussion. Peter was present, and told how the Lord sent him to preach the gospel to the gentiles, which he did on his visit to Cornelius, and how the Holy Spirit fell upon the believing gentiles. Then Paul and Barnabas related their experience as they had gone preaching the gospel among the gentiles. At last James arose, and gave the final decision. As this seemed good to the apostles and the elders and all the church, it was committed to writing, and sent by two of the leading brethren, along with Paul and Barnabas, and was read to the church in Antioch. The entire account of this council is found in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles.

From this we see that Peter was not the president of the council, nor had he more to do in the matter than the other brethren. In fact James was the most prominent on this occasion. This document was not signed by Peter as pope and head of the church. It was given as the unanimous opinion of the disciples, the elders, and the church.

IF PETER HAD BEEN POPE

Had Peter been pope, as is claimed, the decree would have been something as follows: “I, Peter, head of the church, by my divine authority, decree the following,” etc. But no such thing was done. Evidently the disciples still followed the instructions of their Lord, and did not consider any one of their number as the supreme head, but all counseled together, and by the influence of the Holy Spirit, were brought into perfect agreement, and sent out their decision as the opinion of the apostles, the elders, and the whole church.

The apostle Peter himself, when writing to the brethren, never assumed the first place of authority and dignity in the church. He says: “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.” 1 Peter 5:1-4.

PETER AN UNDER-SHEPHERD

In these words of Peter himself, we see that he considered himself as one of the under-shepherds of Jesus Christ. He did not command the other shepherds, as one having authority over them; but he entreated them as an equal, saying that he was also an elder, or pastor, of the church of Jesus Christ. Peter was a humble follower of his Lord, and never pretended to exercise an authority that his Master had forbidden to any of the disciples.