The Supremacy of Paul over Peter

 

    The Roman Catholic Church claims that Peter founded the church at Rome and was the first Bishop of this church. This claim is based strictly upon tradition. However, Jesus rebuked those who followed tradition when that tradition was contrary to the Word of God (Mt. 15). The Roman Catholic tradition concerning Peter and Rome is in direct conflict with the Word of God. Rome claims that Peter is the supreme apostle and over all other apostles including the church of Christ. However this human tradition is in direct contradiction to the Word of God:

 

 

I. Paul Openly Denies that He is in Submission to Peter

 

    Although his humilty made him confess that he was the “least” of all the apostles, however, when it came to apostolic office and  authority he said,

 

2Co 12:11  I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.

 

2Co 11:5  For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.

 

     When speaking of his visit to Jerusalem to see Peter and the other Apostles

he claimed that he gave no subjection to Peter or any of the apostles

 

     “To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.  But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me” – Gal. 2:5-6

 

   However, on the contrary, it was Paul that added more importance  to the   apostles, in fact, he later rebuked Peter for sin.

 

 

      But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)  But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. – Gal. 2:7-8

 

    If Peter was the “vicar of Christ” as tradition says, then, why didn’t Paul submit to his office and authority instead of openly denying any submission to Peter???

II. Paul was appointed a greater ministry than Peter

 

       But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)  But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. – Gal. 2:5-9

 

     Peter’s ministry was limited to the “circumcision” or “Jews” while the ministry of Paul was to the “Gentiles.”  Peter had a much more limited ministry than Paul’s as the Gentile nations far exceeded  the Jews in size, number and geographical space.

     The Roman Catholic Church has no authority to expand the ministry of Peter to the Gentiles as that was given to Paul.  Jesus never gave the “keys” to Peter anymore than He did any other apostle as members of His church. Speaking to the Church Jesus said:

 

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.  (Mat 18:17)

 

Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.  (Mat 18:18)

 

    Peter simply answered in behalf of the rest in Matthew 16 and Jesus simply gave him the keys as a REPRESENTATIVE of the church.  Matthew 18:17-18 proves that the keys was given to the rest of the church members equally as it was to Peter.

   Peter acknowledge that Paul’s authority and ministry was greater in size and number and geographical space than his own.

 

 

III. Paul carried more inspired authority than Peter.

 

      The Apostle Peter wrote only two inspired letters whereas Paul wrote 13 inspired letters including the only letter addressed to Rome by an Apostle. Peter acknowledges Paul’s writing as “other scriptures”

 

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;  As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. – 2 Pet. 3:15-16

 

    Peter acknowledges the supremacy of Biblical understanding in Paul over himself in the above passage. Although Peter never claims inspiration for his two letters he does claim inspiration for Paul’s. Paul is clearly the superior theologian and the superior inspired writer of the New Testament.

 

 

IV. The Roman Churches were under the Jurisdiction of Paul Not Peter

 

    There are many scriptural reasons why Paul was the first apostle to minister to Rome  as well as the first apostle to come there. Paul told the church at Rome that he desired to come to Rome and preach the gospel:

 

Paul told the Roman Churches that he did not go where other apostles had already laid foundations:

 

So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.  (Rom 1:15)

 

     However, at the close of this Roman epistle he tells them that it is his principle never to go and preach the gospel where another apostle has already been:

 

Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:  . – Rom. 15:20

 

    These statements clearly infer that no other apostle had been to Rome prior to the writing of this epistle to Rome by Paul or otherwise he could not have said the above. Moreover, he claims that the churches at Rome are under his jurisdiction as “gentile” churches:

 

Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.  (Rom 1:13)

 

    Remember that Peter’s ministry was unto the “circumcision” rather than unto the Gentiles.

     Another proof that Peter was not at Rome at the time Paul wrote this epistle is the fact that Peter’s name is missing from all those Paul greeted at Rome by name (Rom. 16).

   Moreover, Peter had not been to Rome during Paul’s first imprisonment at Rome because he does not send greetings from Peter as he does others in Rome when writing his prison epistles.

   Also, Peter could not have been in Rome when Paul was imprisoned the last time and put to death unless Peter turned coward because Paul says,

 

2Ti 4:16  At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.

 

    There is no Biblical evidence that Peter ever visited Rome prior to the death of Paul. Peter’s only influence upon the founding of the church at Rome was through his sermon on the day of Pentecost when some Jews of Rome were saved and brought the gospel back to Rome.

 

Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,  (Act 2:10)

 

     Rome was a “gentile” church under the jurisdiction of Paul not Peter. Rome was established in the faith by Paul not Peter. Paul had ministered longer in Rome than Peter. The traditions of the Roman Catholic Church are like a lot of other Roman traditions, tampered with (short and long letters) and in direct contradiction with the facts of the inspired Word of God.