HOW DID THE BISHOP OF ROME BECOME DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER BISHOPS?
We have followed church leadership a long way.
We began with local congregations having elders who were also called bishops or overseers.
Then one bishop became distinguished from the other elders.
Bishops became increasingly important in baptism, communion, discipline, and the preservation of doctrine.
Regional structures developed.
Metropolitan bishops appeared.
Then emperors began dealing directly with bishops and councils.
Now we come to another major development.
Among all those bishops, one eventually claimed a unique position.
THE BISHOP OF ROME.
How did that happen?
Was the bishop of Rome always understood to be the supreme bishop over the worldwide church?
Did Peter establish such an office?
Did the other early bishops recognize it?
Or did Roman authority develop gradually?
Once again, we will try not to begin with later church organization.
We will begin with the text.
1. PETER WAS IMPORTANT
We should not minimize Peter in order to make an argument.
Peter plainly held an important place among the apostles.
His name usually appears first in lists of the Twelve.
He confessed Jesus:
“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
— Matthew 16:16
Jesus replied:
“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.”
— Matthew 16:18
Jesus then spoke about:
“the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”
— Matthew 16:19
Peter preached the sermon on Pentecost.
— Acts 2
Peter played a major role in the opening of the gospel to Cornelius and the Gentiles.
— Acts 10
Nobody reading the New Testament fairly should pretend Peter was unimportant.
But that is not the question.
The question is:
WHAT AUTHORITY DID JESUS GIVE PETER — AND DID THAT AUTHORITY PASS TO THE BISHOPS OF ROME?
Those are two separate questions.
2. WAS PETER THE ONLY APOSTLE GIVEN AUTHORITY TO BIND AND LOOSE?
In Matthew 16 Jesus tells Peter:
“Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
— Matthew 16:19
That sounds very important.
And it is.
But two chapters later Jesus uses almost the same language while speaking to His disciples:
“Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
— Matthew 18:18
Then after His resurrection Jesus told the apostles:
“As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.”
— John 20:21
So whatever special role Peter had, we must not read Matthew 16 as though the other apostles possessed no authority.
They clearly did.
3. WHAT HAPPENS IN ACTS?
Peter is prominent in the early chapters.
But he does not appear as a pope governing the other apostles.
In Acts 8, the apostles in Jerusalem send Peter and John to Samaria.
— Acts 8:14
Peter is sent.
That is interesting if Peter already possesses universal jurisdiction over all the other apostles.
In Acts 11, Christians question Peter about entering the house of Gentiles.
Peter explains what happened.
— Acts 11:1–18
He does not simply answer:
I am Peter. I have supreme authority.
He explains the evidence of God's action.
Then we come to Acts 15.
4. WHAT ABOUT THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL?
The circumcision controversy threatened the unity of the church.
Peter spoke.
His testimony was extremely important.
But Peter did not act alone.
Paul and Barnabas spoke.
James spoke.
Then James said:
“Therefore my judgment is...”
— Acts 15:19
The final letter was sent in the name of:
“the apostles and the elders, your brothers.”
— Acts 15:23
And it said:
“It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us...”
— Acts 15:28
Whatever Peter's role was, Acts 15 does not look like one supreme bishop issuing a decision to the universal church.
It looks like apostles and elders deliberating together.
5. PAUL EVEN CONFRONTED PETER
Galatians gives us another important picture.
Paul says:
“When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.”
— Galatians 2:11
Why?
Peter's behavior concerning Gentile Christians was inconsistent with the truth of the gospel.
Paul corrected him publicly.
Again, Peter was important.
But the gospel was the standard by which even Peter's behavior could be judged.
Remember the principle from our study of apostolic succession:
THE MESSAGE JUDGES THE MESSENGER.
6. PETER CALLED HIMSELF A FELLOW ELDER
Peter's own words are worth reading.
He wrote:
“I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ...”
— 1 Peter 5:1
Then:
“shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight.”
— 1 Peter 5:2
Peter certainly knew that he was an apostle.
But here he calls himself a:
fellow elder.
And he tells elders not to domineer over those entrusted to them.
Then he points beyond himself to:
“the chief Shepherd.”
— 1 Peter 5:4
Peter does not call himself the chief shepherd.
Christ is the Chief Shepherd.
7. THEN WHY DID ROME BECOME SO IMPORTANT?
Several factors came together.
Rome was the capital of the empire.
It was one of the most important cities in the world.
The Roman church was ancient.
Very early tradition connected both Peter and Paul with Rome and with martyrdom there.
The church was large and influential.
Christians traveled to and from Rome.
Disputes could naturally reach Rome.
And the Roman church developed a reputation for its connection with apostolic teaching.
None of that is surprising.
Rome mattered.
But again:
Importance is not the same thing as universal jurisdiction.
8. CLEMENT SHOWS THAT ROME HAD EARLY INFLUENCE
Near the end of the first century, the church at Rome wrote to Corinth concerning a serious dispute there.
That letter is what we call 1 Clement.
It is important evidence.
Rome was clearly concerned about events in another congregation.
Its letter strongly urged the Corinthians to restore proper order.
But notice something easily overlooked.
The letter begins:
“The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth...”
It does not begin:
“Clement, supreme bishop of the universal church, commands Corinth...”
The Roman church speaks to the Corinthian church.
That shows influence.
But we should be cautious about reading the later papacy backward into the document.
9. IRENAEUS GIVES ROME SPECIAL ATTENTION
Around A.D. 180, Irenaeus argued against the Gnostics.
As we saw earlier, he appealed to churches that could trace their teaching back to the apostles.
Rather than list every church, he focused particularly on Rome.
Why Rome?
He described it as a very great, ancient, and widely known church associated with Peter and Paul.
He then listed its succession of bishops.
His purpose was to show that the apostolic faith had been publicly preserved rather than secretly transmitted by the Gnostics.
This is strong evidence for Rome's importance by the late second century.
It should not be dismissed.
But again we must ask exactly what it proves.
Irenaeus is using Rome as powerful evidence for the public preservation of apostolic teaching.
That is not automatically the same thing as saying:
The bishop of Rome possesses universal jurisdiction over every Christian and every bishop in the world.
Those are different claims.
10. ROME DID NOT ALWAYS GET ITS WAY
Near the end of the second century there was a serious controversy over the date for celebrating Easter.
Churches in Asia Minor followed one practice.
Rome followed another.
Victor, bishop of Rome, attempted to cut the Asian churches off from communion.
Other bishops objected.
Irenaeus himself urged Victor toward peace.
This episode is extremely revealing.
The bishop of Rome clearly possessed substantial influence.
Otherwise his action would hardly have mattered.
But other bishops did not simply behave as though every decision of the Roman bishop automatically settled the matter.
The boundaries of Roman authority were still being worked out.
11. CYPRIAN GIVES US AN EVEN CLEARER EXAMPLE
In the third century, Cyprian of Carthage spoke very highly of Peter and of church unity.
Yet Cyprian also became involved in a major dispute with Stephen, bishop of Rome, over baptism performed by heretics.
Stephen opposed rebaptizing those who had already received Christian baptism outside Catholic communion.
Cyprian disagreed.
The dispute became heated.
What matters for our study is this:
Cyprian did not behave as though the bishop of Rome possessed unquestionable authority to settle the issue for all bishops everywhere.
At a council at Carthage, Cyprian emphasized that no bishop should set himself up as a bishop of bishops or force his colleagues into obedience.
That tells us something important about third-century episcopal relationships.
Rome was important.
But the later understanding of universal papal jurisdiction was not simply operating everywhere without dispute.
12. NICAEA IS VERY IMPORTANT
Now move to A.D. 325.
Canon 6 of the Council of Nicaea refers to ancient customs.
It recognizes the authority of the bishop of Alexandria in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis.
Then it says that a similar custom exists concerning Rome.
Antioch and other provinces are also told to retain their privileges.
Look carefully at the picture.
We have several major episcopal centers.
Rome.
Alexandria.
Antioch.
Nicaea certainly recognizes Rome's importance.
But it does not describe every bishop in the world as being under the administrative jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome.
It describes regional arrangements.
13. THEN CONSTANTINOPLE CREATED A NEW PROBLEM
Constantine established Constantinople as a new imperial capital.
The city rapidly became enormously important.
What happened to its bishop?
At the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381, the bishop of Constantinople was given the prerogative of honor immediately after the bishop of Rome.
Why?
The canon gives a remarkably simple reason:
because Constantinople was New Rome.
Notice what that suggests.
Ecclesiastical importance was being connected, at least in part, with the political importance of cities.
Rome had enormous prestige.
Now the new imperial capital was acquiring ecclesiastical prestige too.
14. CHALCEDON MAKES THE ARGUMENT EVEN MORE EXPLICIT
At the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451, Canon 28 discussed the privileges of Constantinople.
The council said the fathers had granted privileges to old Rome:
because it was the royal city.
It then argued that Constantinople, as New Rome, should receive comparable privileges because it too possessed the emperor and senate.
That is extraordinary evidence.
Whatever other theological arguments existed for Roman primacy, these bishops plainly recognized a connection between:
the importance of the city
and
the importance of its bishop.
Rome's ecclesiastical prestige did not develop in a historical vacuum.
15. BUT SOMETHING ELSE WAS DEVELOPING IN ROME
Rome's bishops did not base their claims only upon the importance of their city.
A much stronger theological argument developed.
It centered on Peter.
Jesus had said:
“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.”
— Matthew 16:18
He had given Peter the keys.
Peter had been prominent among the apostles.
Peter was traditionally associated with Rome.
Therefore the Roman bishop increasingly came to be viewed as occupying Peter's chair.
That argument could provide something political prestige alone could never provide:
DIVINE AUTHORITY.
If Peter possessed a unique authority...
and if Peter's authority continued in the Roman bishop...
then the bishop of Rome was not merely bishop of an important city.
He was Peter's successor.
That changes everything.
16. LEO I MAKES THE CLAIM MUCH CLEARER
By the fifth century we come to Leo I, bishop of Rome from A.D. 440 to 461.
With Leo, Roman claims become much more explicit.
Leo repeatedly appealed to Peter.
He understood the authority associated with Peter as continuing in the Roman see.
Writing to the bishop of Thessalonica, Leo spoke of responsibilities committed through the authority of Peter and described care for the churches as belonging to Rome by divine institution.
That is much stronger than saying:
Rome is an old and respected church.
The argument has become:
Peter received authority from Christ.
Peter's authority continues in his see.
The Roman bishop therefore exercises Petrine authority.
Now we are approaching something recognizably closer to later papal claims.
17. BUT EVEN IN LEO'S TIME THE QUESTION WAS NOT COMPLETELY SETTLED
This is why Chalcedon is so interesting.
Leo was enormously influential at the Council of Chalcedon.
His famous Tome concerning Christ was received with great respect.
Yet the same council passed Canon 28 giving Constantinople extensive privileges and grounding them partly in its status as the imperial city.
Rome objected to that canon.
So even in the fifth century we see two different ways of thinking about primacy interacting:
Rome emphasizes Peter.
The eastern bishops also emphasize the standing of major imperial cities and established conciliar structures.
The later papal system should not simply be dropped backward into this period as though everybody already understood Roman authority in exactly the same way.
They did not.
18. WATCH THE ARGUMENT DEVELOP
Put the evidence in order.
NEW TESTAMENT
Peter is a leading apostle.
Christ gives him an important role.
But Christ remains the Chief Shepherd.
No passage explicitly says Peter's unique apostolic authority will pass to a succession of bishops located at Rome.
↓
LATE FIRST CENTURY
The Roman church writes an influential letter to Corinth.
↓
SECOND CENTURY
Rome's apostolic associations and preservation of apostolic teaching make it an important reference point.
Irenaeus gives Rome special attention.
↓
THIRD CENTURY
Rome's bishop exercises considerable influence.
But bishops such as Cyprian can still resist Roman claims.
↓
A.D. 325 — NICAEA
Rome is one of several major episcopal centers with established regional privileges.
↓
A.D. 381 — CONSTANTINOPLE
The bishop of New Rome receives honor immediately after old Rome.
↓
A.D. 451 — CHALCEDON
Rome's high standing is recognized.
Constantinople also receives major privileges because it is the imperial city.
↓
LEO I
The bishop of Rome increasingly grounds his authority explicitly in Peter and claims responsibility extending far beyond the local Roman church.
The development is becoming much clearer.
19. NOW ASK THE TEXTUAL QUESTION
We are not asking:
Was Rome important?
Clearly it was.
We are not asking:
Was Peter important?
Clearly he was.
We are not asking:
Did early Christians respect the Roman church?
Many plainly did.
We are asking something more precise:
DID JESUS ESTABLISH AN OFFICE IN WHICH PETER'S UNIQUE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY WOULD PASS TO THE BISHOP OF ROME AND HIS SUCCESSORS?
Where does the New Testament say that?
Where does Peter say it?
Where does Paul say it?
Where does Acts describe it?
Where are Christians instructed to submit to the bishop of Rome as head of the universal church?
Those are the questions the text must answer.
20. DO NOT ARGUE MORE THAN THE EVIDENCE ALLOWS
It would be too simple to say:
“The papacy suddenly appeared.”
It did not.
It developed.
It would also be too simple to say:
“Nothing resembling Roman primacy existed until centuries after the apostles.”
Rome possessed unusual importance quite early.
The historical evidence is more interesting than either slogan.
We can watch the development.
Influence became precedence.
Precedence became claims of primacy.
Peter became increasingly central to the argument.
And the Roman bishop increasingly understood his office as possessing authority inherited from Peter.
The important question remains:
Was that authority revealed in the apostolic text, or was it a later interpretation of the apostolic text?
READ IT FOR YOURSELF
Matthew 16:13–20
Matthew 18:15–20
Acts 2
Acts 8:14–25
Acts 10–11
Acts 15
Galatians 1:6–9
Galatians 2:1–14
1 Peter 5:1–4
Then compare the historical evidence:
1 Clement
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3
The Easter controversy involving Victor of Rome
Cyprian and Stephen
Council of Nicaea, Canon 6
Council of Constantinople, Canon 3
Council of Chalcedon, Canon 28
The letters of Leo I
Do not begin with the modern papacy and assume it existed in A.D. 33.
Do not begin by assuming it could not have developed from anything earlier either.
START WITH THE TEXT.
Then follow the history.
Ask at every stage:
What authority existed?
Who exercised it?
Over whom?
On what basis?
And when do we first see the claim?
When we do that, we can see that Rome did not become Rome overnight.
Its authority grew.
Its arguments developed.
And Peter increasingly became the foundation upon which its larger claims were built.
But we have not yet reached the medieval papacy.
There are still major developments ahead.
So our next question is:
HOW DID THE BISHOP OF ROME BECOME THE POPE?
Two pieces of evidence are especially useful here. Nicaea (325) treats Rome alongside Alexandria and Antioch when discussing established regional privileges. (New Advent) But by Leo I in the fifth century, Leo could speak of responsibility for the churches as belonging to Rome by divine institution and connect his delegated authority directly with Peter. (New Advent)
And Chalcedon gives us a fascinating counterweight: Canon 28 says old Rome had received privileges because it was the imperial city, and it used that reasoning to grant Constantinople comparable privileges as “New Rome.” (New Advent) That helps us show the evidence rather than forcing the later Catholic or Protestant interpretation onto the earlier centuries.