On Thursday, May 8, 2025, the College of Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church elected their 246th Pope, Robert Francis Prevost, who took the name Leo XIV. Both Catholics and non-Catholics all over the world rejoiced at his appointment. According to Catholic dogma, the new Pope continues in an unbroken succession of Popes going back to the Apostle Peter.
While the world has accepted the ministry of the Catholic Pope, the question needs to be asked whether the office of the Pope is necessary, and even more importantly, biblically required or even prohibited. In this paper I will contend that the office of the Pope is not only unnecessary, but contrary to the will of God concerning the government of the Church as delineated in the New Testament.
The supposed biblical authority for the office of the Pope begins with the statement made by Jesus Christ investing authority to Peter in Matthew 16. The Lord had asked His disciples concerning the world’s conception of His identity to which various answers were given. He then asked them of their conception of His identity. Peter responded by declaring that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of living God. Peter received commendation for his declaration with Christ indicating that such a conclusion could only be realized by heavenly revelation. Jesus then goes on to say, “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. 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.” (Matthew 16:18-19)
According to the Catholic interpretation of the passage, two promises are given to Peter in these two verses. First, in verse 18 is the promise that the church will be built upon the foundation of the ministry of Peter. Then in verse 19 the second promise is that Peter will possess the keys to the kingdom of heaven in which he will be able to bind and loose (to exercise authority). But can these promises be supported in the text?
The key to the interpretation of the text providing the first promise is the identity of “this rock.” If you were reading this passage in the original Greek of the New Testament, you would notice a play on words. Jesus says, “thou art Petros and upon this petra I will build my church.” Why the change? Catholic apologist Tim Staples notes that while the New Testament was written in Koine Greek, the language used by the Jews of the first century was Aramaic. He then posits that when Jesus first came in contact with Peter in John 1:41, he changed his name to Cephas, which is the Aramaic form of Petra. Consequently, the Petra of Matthew 16 is a reference to Peter.[1] He appeals to D.A. Carson, who writes in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, “The underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.”[2]
There are a number of problems with Staples’ reference to Carson. First, Carson states that “kepha was most probably used by Jesus in both clauses” To base a definite conclusion of interpretation on uncertain grounds of what word was to be interpreted is poor argumentation. Second, whether Jesus was speaking in Aramaic or not is inconsequential. Matthew recorded the conversation by inspiration in Greek and two different Greek words were used. If Jesus wanted Peter to be the foundation for the Church He would build, it would make more sense to say, “You, Peter, are the rock on which I will build my church.” Third, while Carson may favor the interpretation that the petra was a reference to Peter, he does not conclude that it entails the authority of being a Pope. A couple of paragraphs after the above citation, Carson writes, “The text says nothing about Peter’s successors, infallibility, or exclusive authority. These late interpretations entail insuperable exegetical and historical problems- e.g., after Peter’s death, his “successor” would have authority over a surviving apostle, John.”
Regardless of one’s interpretation of little rocks (petros) and massive rocks (petra), the most significant item in the interpretation of the passage might be the word “this.” This refers to something specific. If Peter were the object which would become the foundation for the church, then the word “this” would be unnecessary and it would also be confusing. If you replace the petros and petra with “Peter” the passage would read, You are Peter, and upon this Peter, I will build my church. That makes little sense. The “this” must refer to something other than Peter.
Whatever is the object of “this,” it is the foundation upon which Jesus will build His church. The “this” then can be determined by how the church is built; what makes it grow. A person is added to the church by their faithful confession of the saving person and work of Jesus Christ. Peter, himself, testified of this in Acts 4:12 where he stated that there is not salvation in any other name but that of Jesus Christ. The “this rock” then is what Peter had just confessed, “thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
One other argument against Peter being the rock upon which the church is built can be found in Ephesians 2:20. Paul writes that Christians, “are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;” (Eph. 2:20) If the “this rock” was Peter, shouldn’t the verse read, “are built upon Peter, Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone”?
If Matthew 16:18 conveys the office of the Pope to Peter, it would seem reasonable that somewhere in the writings of Peter he would either use that title, or at least make some reference to having such authority. Nowhere is it found. In fact, in 1 Peter 5:1 he writes to elders (presbuteros) that are scattered throughout the Roman empire. He writes as an elder, but he calls his title literally a “fellow elder” (sumpresbuteros). He is one with them, not one over them. In writing to them he does not command them, but exhorts (parakaleo) them. There is no supreme authority in his writing.
In similar fashion we see the lack of supreme authority being exercised by Peter in the Jerusalem Council recorded in Acts 15. A theological problem arose in the church at Antioch. Some men, who apparently said they were commissioned by the church at Jerusalem, came to Antioch insisting that Gentiles be circumcised in order to be saved. This created a controversy that the leaders were unable to resolve. They then sent representatives to Jerusalem to solve the theological problem. When the problem was presented to the apostles and elders, there was disagreement even among them. Peter then stood up and gave his decree. If he had papal authority, and if he was speaking ex cathedra, then that should have settled the matter. It didn’t. Following Peter, Barnabas and Paul gave testimony and following them, James, the half-brother of Jesus and leader of the church in Jerusalem gave an extended declaration. When he finished it was determined to send a letter with Paul and Barnabas to the church at Antioch with these words, “… The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.” (Acts 15:23-29) Not once does any one person make a unilateral statement concerning the resolution to the problem but the pronouncement is always plural (we/us).
A similar problem that would indicate that Peter did not possess papal authority is that while he was living, more of the New Testament was being written by people other than him. It would seem that if Peter was the Pope, he should have written most, if not all of the New Testament until his death. That problem persists even after his death in that John will be writing his three epistles, gospel and apocalypse while Peter’s successor will write nothing of canonical value.
Considering all the evidence above, it becomes clear that Matthew 16:18 can not be used as support for Jesus conferring the papacy to Peter. But what about verse 19? There Peter is given the keys to the kingdom of heaven which Catholicism claims is a promise of authority. If so, verse 19 may support the office of the Pope.
G.H. Joyce writes in Power of the Keys, Christ’s Promise to the Apostle Peter, “The expression “power of the keys” is derived from Christ’s words to St. Peter (in Matt., xvi, 19). The promise there made finds its explanation in Isaias, xxii, in which “the key of the house of David” is conferred upon Eliacim, the son of Helcias, as the symbol of plenary authority in the Kingdom of Juda. Christ by employing this expression clearly designed to signify his intention to confer on St. Peter the supreme authority over His Church.”[3] Without question, there exists a parallel between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16. The problem with Joyce’s conclusion concerning the value of the key is found in his statement that Eliakim had “plenary authority” and Peter consequently has “supreme authority” over the Church.
Eliakim was a vizier. A vizier in Bible times was a person who basically was second in command. The International Bible Encyclopedia Online states, “He is the "treasurer" (the Revised Version, margin "steward"), and is "over the house" (Isa 22:15). At his installation he is clothed with a robe and girdle, the insignia of his office, and, having the government committed into his hand, is the "father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah" (Isa 22:21). The key of the house of David is laid on his shoulder, and he alone has power to open and shut, this being symbolic of his absolute authority as the king's representative (Isa 22:22).” What is important to note is that Eliakim had absolute authority as the king’s representative. He was not the king. His authority had to be exercised in accordance with the will of the king.
Eliakim’s responsibilities would basically be making available the resources of the king or restricting access to the resources of the kingdom. Hence the symbolism of using a key in opening (unlocking / loosing) or closing (locking / binding). Eliakim replaced Shebna because Shebna wanted all the glory for himself and was unfaithful in his duties. The important point to emphasize is that the vizier was not permitted to do whatever he desired, he had to faithfully execute the will of the king which was committed to him.
Jesus’ bestowal of the keys in Matthew 16 seemingly comes with a promise, but that promise is, in reality, a qualifying condition. “… whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) The verbal tenses used in this verse are quite unusual. The two underlined verbs above consist of a future tense of the verb “to be” and a perfect tense of “bound” and “loosed”. Both perfect tense verbs are also passive in voice. Whenever a perfect tense verb is coupled with any tense of the verb “to be” it is called a perfect periphrastic. A perfect tense verb indicates a completion of an act in the past with the consequence of it continuing to the present. When it becomes a periphrastic, emphasis is given to the continuing consequence. A very literal translation of the verbs then would be “shall have been bound” and shall have been loosed.” A declaration binding or loosening would have already been made in heaven before Peter could declare it on earth. Peter, then, had to bind and loose according to the will of God. He could not unilaterally decide what or who to either bind or loose.
Peter was not given the key to the house of David (that key is still in the possession of Jesus Christ- Rev. 3:7) but the keys (notice the plural) to the kingdom of heaven. Exactly what is the kingdom of heaven? John MacArthur writes, “The kingdom has two aspects, the outer and the inner, both of which are spoken of in the gospels. Those aspects are evident as one moves through Matthew. In the broadest sense, the kingdom includes everyone who professes to acknowledge God. Jesus’ parable of the sower represents the kingdom as including both genuine and superficial believers (Matt. 13:3–23), and in His following parable (vv. 24–30) as including both wheat (true believers) and tares (false believers). That is the outer kingdom, the one we can see but cannot accurately evaluate ourselves, because we cannot know people’s hearts.
The other kingdom is the inner, the kingdom that includes only true believers, only those who, as John the Baptist proclaimed, repent and are converted. God rules over both aspects of the kingdom, and He will one day finally separate the superficial from the real. Meanwhile He allows the pretenders to identify themselves outwardly with His kingdom.”[4] The kingdom of heaven then has reference to whether a person has genuinely received Christ as Savior and has become a citizen of heaven (Colossians 1:13). Consequently then, the declaration made in heaven concerning entrance into the kingdom is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Carson accurately concludes the issue writing, “Whatever he [Peter] binds or looses will have been bound or loosed, so long as he adheres to that divinely disclosed gospel. He has no direct pipeline to heaven, still less do his decisions force heaven to comply; but he may be authoritative in binding and loosing because heaven acted first (cf. Acts 18:9-10). Those he ushers in or excludes have already been bound or loosed by God according to the gospel already revealed and which Peter, by confessing Jesus as Messiah, has most clearly grasped.”[5]
As noted above, Peter had multiple keys to the kingdom. This implies more than one opportunity to open some aspect of it. I believe Peter had at least three such opportunities. His first exercise of the privilege is found in Acts 2 where he preaches on the day of Pentecost following the ascension of Jesus to heaven. On that day the kingdom was opened to 3000 Jews. His second opportunity is found in Acts 3:4-4:4 where after being used of God in the healing of the lame man, he preached and 5000 souls trusted Christ. His third opportunity in found in Acts 10 where he preaches to a group of Gentiles who then come to faith in Christ. Acts also records a couple of instances where Peter uses the keys to bind. Acts 4 concludes the account of the saving of the 5000 with the confrontation of the Sadducees who rejected Peter’s preaching. A similar instance is found in Acts 8 where Peter confronts Simon the magician. Each and every one of these occurrences where Peter employs the “keys” is an instance where the gospel is preached and the response of faith, or the lack of one, determines whether the kingdom was opened or bound.
While Peter is specifically given the keys to the kingdom in Matthew 16, that he alone possessed them is not a defensible claim. Prior to His ascension into heaven, Jesus commissioned His disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel (Matthew 28:19-20, Mark 16:15-16, Luke 24:45-48). That commission extends to all believers throughout the church age. And although it does not pertain to the opening or closing of kingdom, we find that the church is given the same commission in binding and loosing as Peter in Matthew 18:18 in the matter of church discipline. In that Peter is singled out as the recipient of the keys in Matthew 16 does not mean then that others did not have the same privilege or responsibility of using them. Peter was chosen to receive them simply because he was the one who answered first with the correct declaration of the identity of Jesus Christ. All who attest to Jesus’ person as Peter did, have the same privilege and responsibility of using those keys.
Not only is the office of papal authority not found in the declaration to Peter in Matthew 16, but such an office is contrary to the rest of the revealed organization of the leadership of the church. There are only two leadership positions authorized in the New Testament: elder and deacon. The first term, elder, is a position that is declared by three different titles. Elder is specifically seen in Titus 1:5 where the Apostle Paul states that Titus was to ordain elders in every city of Crete where a church was to be found. The Greek word that is translated “elder” is the word presbuteros from which we get presbyterian. This term emphasizes the spiritual maturity of the person in leadership. The second term that is used is bishop. This is seen in the qualifications of the person given in 1 Timothy 3:1 and following. Here the Greek word is episcopos from which we get episcopal. It is sometimes rendered as “overseer” which is a very literal translation of the preposition epi = upon or over, and skopeo = to look or to observe. This word deals more with the function of the office, to oversee the ministry in accordance with biblical injunctions. The third term that is used is pastor. It is the translation of the Greek word poimen and can be also translated as shepherd. This word describes how the function is accomplished. That these three terms are synonymous is shown in Acts 20:17-28. In verses 17, Paul calls the elders (presbuteroi) of the church in Ephesus to come to him. In verse 28 he charges them as overseers (episcopoi) to feed (poimaino- verb form of noun poimen) the church.
The qualifications for the other office, deacon, is found in 1 Timothy 3 as well. Most believe that the office of deacon was first found in Acts 6 where the physical needs of ministering to widows had become too time-consuming for the apostles, keeping them from accomplishing what they were called to do. That these two offices are the only offices can be seen in the first verse of Paul’s letter to the Philippians. To add the office of Archbishop, Cardinal or Pope, is to go beyond what Scripture requires and rather than being an asset to the ministry of the church, it becomes a hindrance.
Elders and deacons were prescribed offices in the New Testament, making the local church sufficient to govern themselves. There is, however, one other that must be involved in the governing of the church and that is the Holy Spirit. In the same manner as the apostles were under the leading and guidance of Jesus during His earthly ministry, so church leadership must be under the guidance of the Spirit of God. In the upper room discourse, prior to leaving for Gethsemane, Jesus stated that He was returning to the Father, but that he would then send the Holy Spirit who would “guide them into all truth.” (John 16:13). That same Holy Spirit is still guiding leaders today (as well as all believers) in truth (John 14:16). If local churches are capable of making decisions in the will of God concerning its ministry through the mandated offices of elder and deacon under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, would the adding of another office make their decisions better? It would be similar to saying, “I can improve on perfection.” No you can’t! Any time anyone seeks to change perfection, the outcome is something less than perfection. The addition of a Pope to the ministry of the church only corrupts it.
As noted at the beginning of this paper, by in large the world rejoiced when the new Pope assumed his office, an office I contend is contrary to the plan of God for His church. As I watched the news that day, I could not help but to think of the passage in Revelation 11 where God’s two witnesses on the earth during tribulation times are killed by the Antichrist. The world then will rejoice even by sending gifts to one another that these men of God would no longer be able to “torment” them. The point of comparison is this- our world rejoiced in accepting that which is not of God (the Pope) and the future world will rejoice in rejecting that which is of God (the two witnesses). I wonder if it will be the same people that do both.
[1] Tim Staples. 7 Reasons Why Peter Is The Rock. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/peter-the-rock. Accessed 5-13-25.
[2] Carson, D.A., Matthew, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 8. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House) 1984, p. 368.
[3] G.H. Joyce, The Power of the Keys, Christ’s Promise to the Apostle Peter. https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/power-of-the-keys (Accessed 5-14-25).
[4][4] John MacArthur. What Is the Kingdom of Heaven? https://www.gty.org/library/bibleqnas-library/QA0158/what-is-the-kingdom-of-heaven. (Accessed 5-14-25).
[5] Ibid., p. 373.