Who Started Christianity? The Truth About Peter, the Papacy, and 2,000 Years of Interpretation

The question of authority in the Church is one of the most divisive in all of Christendom. For nearly a billion Roman Catholics worldwide, the answer is clear: Jesus Christ established the papacy, and He appointed the Apostle Peter as the first Pope. For Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and many others, this claim is not just questionable—it is a fundamental misinterpretation of Scripture that has led the largest institution in Christendom down a dangerous path.

This is not a topic for the faint of heart. It requires us to go back to the source—the Bible itself—and ask the hard questions. Who really started Christianity? What did Jesus actually say to Peter? Have centuries of Catholic tradition been built on a misunderstanding? And most importantly, if Peter himself were alive today, would he recognize the office that claims to be his succession?

Let us go verse by verse, fact by fact, and history by history to find the truth.

Who Started Christianity?

Before we can discuss the papacy, we must answer the foundational question: Who started Christianity?

The answer, biblically, is singular: Jesus Christ. However, we must be careful with our terms. Jesus did not come to start a new religion called "Christianity" in the sense of a separate system from Judaism. He came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17). He came to establish the Church (Greek: Ekklesia, meaning "called-out assembly").

Ephesians 1:22-23 is clear: "And God placed all things under his [Jesus'] feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way."

Colossians 1:18 states: "And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy."

The founder, the head, the cornerstone, and the supreme authority of the Church is Jesus Christ alone. No man—not Peter, not Paul, not James—shares that foundational headship. The apostles described themselves as "servants," "stewards," and "fellow elders," but never as the head of the Church .

The Catholic Claim: What Do They Believe?

The Roman Catholic Church officially teaches that Jesus Christ established Peter as the first Pope. According to Catholic doctrine, this means:

1. Primacy: Peter was given supreme, universal jurisdiction over the entire Church.

2. Infallibility: In matters of faith and morals, when speaking ex cathedra (from the chair), the Pope is preserved from error.

3. Apostolic Succession: This authority was passed down through the bishops of Rome (the Popes) in an unbroken line to the present day .

This doctrine rests almost entirely on one passage of Scripture: Matthew 16:18-19.

Where Does It Say This in the Bible? (The Great Debate)

Let us look at the text. Jesus asks His disciples who they say He is. Simon Peter answers:
"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus replies:
"Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:17-19).

On the surface, this seems powerful. But we must dig deeper. The entire Catholic structure "crumbles to dust" if this passage does not mean what Rome says it means .

1. The Rock: Peter or His Confession?

Here is the first major issue. In the original Greek in which the New Testament was written, there is a deliberate play on words, but it reveals a distinction.

• Peter is Petros. This typically means a small stone, a pebble, or a detached rock.

• Rock is petra. This means a massive bedrock, a cliff, a foundation stone.

Jesus is essentially saying, "You are a small stone (Petros), and on this bedrock (petra) I will build my church." The petra almost certainly refers to the truth Peter had just confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." .

This interpretation is reinforced by the rest of the New Testament. Peter himself, in his first epistle, refers to Jesus as the cornerstone and tells believers that they, too, are "living stones" being built into a spiritual house (1 Peter 2:4-8). He never claims to be the foundation. Furthermore, Ephesians 2:20 explicitly states that the Church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the cornerstone. " The foundation is the collective group, and the cornerstone—the most important stone—is Christ, not Peter.

2. The Keys: Given to One Man, or to All Believers?

Catholic apologists often link the "keys" given to Peter to the Old Testament office of the royal steward in Isaiah 22:22, who held the "key of the house of David" . They argue this makes Peter the "Prime Minister" of the Church.

However, look at the rest of the New Testament. In Matthew 18:18, Jesus gives the exact same authority to bind and loose to all the disciples. If the keys signified exclusive, supreme authority, why would Jesus give that same authority to everyone else just two chapters later?

Furthermore, in Revelation 1:18 and 3:7, it is Jesus, not Peter, who is described as the one "who has the key of David." The keys belong to Christ. The authority to preach the Gospel—the true "key" that opens the Kingdom to believers—was given to the entire Church. As the Reformed tradition rightly teaches, the "keys" are the Gospel itself. Whoever preaches the Gospel holds the keys to the Kingdom .

3. The Context: Peter's Immediate Failure

Immediately after this high point, Jesus begins to explain that He must suffer and die. Peter rebukes Him, saying, "This shall never happen to you." Jesus' response is shocking:
"Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me" (Matthew 16:23).

If Peter had just been installed as an infallible Pope, how could he, within the space of a few verses, be called "Satan" and a "stumbling block" (skandalon)? This demonstrates Peter's fallibility and rebukes any notion of an infallible, supreme office .

Have Catholics Been Misinterpreting Scriptures for Centuries?

This is a difficult question, but based on the biblical evidence, the answer must be a cautious YES. The misinterpretation is not necessarily malicious, but it is a classic case of reading later church tradition back into the text (eisegesis) rather than drawing the meaning out of the text (exegesis).

The Evidence for Misinterpretation:

1. The Structure of the Early Church: If Peter was the Supreme Pontiff, why does the New Testament show a different leadership structure?

   • At the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), Peter speaks, but he does not preside. It is James, the brother of Jesus, who gives the final verdict: "Therefore my judgment is..." (Acts 15:19). James acted as the presiding bishop, not Peter .

   • Paul repeatedly refers to James, Cephas (Peter), and John as "pillars" (Galatians 2:9), implying a collegial leadership, not a monarchical one .

2. Peter was Corrected: In Galatians 2:11-14, Paul openly confronts and corrects Peter in Antioch because Peter was acting hypocritically regarding the Gentiles. Paul opposed him "to his face." This is unthinkable if Peter held a supreme, infallible office that required unquestioning submission . Peter was accountable to his brother apostle.

3. Peter's Own View of Himself: In 1 Peter 5:1, Peter introduces himself: "So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder." He does not call himself "Supreme Pontiff," "Vicar of Christ," or "Head of the Church." He calls himself a fellow elder. He warns other leaders not to be "domineering" over those in their charge (1 Peter 5:3). This is the opposite of a papal monarchy.

Would Jesus Approve of This?

Based on His own words, it is difficult to see how Jesus would approve of a system where one man claims universal jurisdiction and infallibility over all of God's people.

Jesus explicitly forbade this type of hierarchical power structure among His followers.

• Matthew 20:25-28: "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant."

• Matthew 23:8-10: "But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ."

The papacy, by its very nature, creates a system where one man is the "Holy Father" and the supreme authority on earth. This directly contradicts Jesus' command that we have one Father (God) and one Master (Christ), and that we are all brothers.

Would Peter Approve of This?

This is perhaps the most piercing question. Imagine the Apostle Peter, the rough Galilean fisherman, the man who denied Christ and was restored, the man who called himself a "fellow elder." Imagine him looking at the Vatican—a sovereign state with a monarch, a throne, a crown (the tiara), and political power.

Would he approve? Almost certainly NO.

Peter walked with Jesus, who had "no place to lay his head" (Matthew 8:20). He witnessed Jesus wash feet. He was told to put away his sword. The idea that his "successor" would reign from a throne, wear a jeweled crown, and command armies would be utterly alien and blasphemous to him. Peter's "successors" in Scripture were men like Polycarp and Ignatius, who were martyred for the faith, not monarchs ruling from palaces.

The Historical Reality: The Papacy Developed, It Was Not Created

History confirms what the Bible suggests. The office of the papacy, as we know it today, did not exist in the first century. It developed over centuries .

• 1st Century: The church in Rome was led by a plurality of elders/presbyters, not a single bishop.

• 2nd-3rd Centuries: The title "pope" (papa, meaning "father") was used for any respected bishop. The Bishop of Rome was seen as first among equals (primus inter pares), primarily due to Rome's political importance as the capital of the empire .

• 4th-5th Centuries: As the Roman Empire declined, the Bishop of Rome's power grew. Popes like Leo I began to articulate a stronger claim to universal jurisdiction, using Matthew 16 as a justification—a claim that was often rejected by bishops in the East.

• Medieval Period: The papacy reached its zenith of political and military power, a far cry from the humble fishermen of Galilee .

The Petrine theory—the idea that Peter was the first Pope with universal jurisdiction—is not a clear biblical truth. It is a theological and political construct built over centuries to legitimize the power of the Roman see .

Conclusion: The Verdict

Let us answer the questions directly, based on the weight of Scripture.

1. Did Christ make Peter the first Pope?
NO.

• Why: The Bible shows Peter as a leading apostle, but not a supreme, infallible monarch. The "rock" of Matthew 16 is best understood as Peter's confession of Christ, or Christ Himself. The "keys" were given to the entire Church. The New Testament structure shows a plurality of leadership, not a single head.

2. Where does the Bible say this?
NOWHERE.

• Why: No verse in the Bible states that Peter was a "Pope," that he had successors, or that his authority was passed on to the Bishops of Rome. The Catholic doctrine of the papacy is based on a specific interpretation of Matthew 16, not a plain reading of the text.

3. Have Catholics been misinterpreting Scriptures for centuries?
YES, based on the biblical evidence.

• Why: By elevating one interpretation of Matthew 16 while ignoring the clear structural evidence of Acts, the correction of Peter in Galatians, and Peter's own humble self-description, the Catholic tradition has built a doctrinal structure that conflicts with the scriptural portrait of the early church .

4. Would Jesus approve of the papacy?
NO.

• Why: Jesus explicitly forbade His followers from exercising "lording it over" authority like the Gentile kings. He commanded servant leadership and called us all "brothers." A hierarchical, monarchical papacy contradicts His direct teachings .

5. Would Peter approve of the papacy?
NO.

• Why: Peter, the "fellow elder" who warned against domineering, would be horrified to see a man sitting on a throne claiming to be the "Vicar of Christ" (substitute for Christ) on earth. He would point to Jesus as the sole Head of the Church and call us all to humble service.

The true Church was not built on a single man. It was built on the confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. That is the rock that cannot be moved. Let us hold fast to that confession, and to Christ alone, as our ultimate authority.