08/30/2026
There Is Only One Head
***Part 1***
There is a common teaching in Roman Catholicism that the Apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome and therefore the first pope. From that teaching comes the idea that Christ established Peter as the supreme earthly head of the church, that Peter eventually traveled to Rome, established the Roman church, served as its bishop, and died there as a martyr. From Peter, they then claim to trace a succession of Roman bishops which eventually becomes what is known as the papacy. The traditional story is that Peter was crucified upside down in Rome because he did not consider himself worthy to die in the same manner as his Lord.
Catholics look to the words of Jesus in Matthew 16:18: “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.” Their claim is that Peter himself is the “rock” upon which Christ built His church, and from this they develop the doctrine of apostolic succession. The idea is that Peter was the first pope and that a continuous line of popes has served as the head of the so-called universal church for nearly 2,000 years.
But the wording of the text deserves closer examination. Jesus said, “Thou art Peter” which is translated from the Greek word Petros. Jesus then said, “upon this rock” which comes from the Greek word Petra. While the two words are related, they are not identical. Petros refers to a small stone or rock, while Petra commonly refers to a large or unmovable rock. The distinction is significant because Jesus did not say, “You are Peter, and upon you I will build my church.” He said, “upon this rock I will build my church.”
And Scripture gives us a clear understanding of who the true Rock is. Paul wrote concerning Israel, “...and that Rock was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4). Christ Himself is the foundation upon which His church is built. Peter was an apostle and certainly an important servant of Christ, but Scripture never presents Peter as the head of Christ's church.
Jesus is the Rock. Jesus is the Head. Jesus is the one who builds His church. The final part of Matthew 16:18 says, “...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The word translated “hell” is Hades, referring to death or the grave. Christ's promise is that death itself would not overcome His church. His church would continue because Christ Himself would preserve it. This promise was not made to a succession of popes. It was made concerning Christ's church, which Christ Himself promised to build and preserve.
The church Jesus established was not a universal institution ruled by a pope. It was a visible assembly of baptized believers gathered together in His name, observing His ordinances, and continuing in His doctrine. What we would today identify as a true Baptist church is the kind of local, visible assembly Christ established and promised to preserve. The Rock upon which Christ built His church was never Peter. The Rock was and is Christ.
Scripture does not present Christ as establishing one universal earthly organization over all Christians with Peter at its head. When we understand this biblical pattern, the Roman Catholic doctrine of a universal church headed by a succession of popes begins to look very different.
Paul tells us plainly in Ephesians 5:23, “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.” Notice carefully who is identified as the Head: Christ. Paul does not say that Peter is the head of the church. He does not say that the bishop of Rome is the head of the church. He says Christ is the Head.
Colossians 1:18 says, “And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.” Christ is not merely one authority among many. He is the Head, and He is to have the preeminence in all things. The church does not need a substitute head on earth because its Head is alive in heaven.
This is where the doctrine of the papacy must be examined carefully. If Christ is the Head of the church, then no man can rightfully take Christ's place. Peter was an apostle. Peter was greatly used by God. Peter preached the gospel, suffered for Christ, and ultimately would glorify God by his death. But Peter was never presented in Scripture as the universal head of all the churches.
Paul's language in Colossians is especially important. He says Christ is “...the head of the body, the church…” (Colossians 1:18). If Christ is the Head, then the church is His body. The authority belongs to Him. Paul then warns against those who are “...not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together…” (Colossians 2:19). The body receives its nourishment from the Head. The church receives its direction and authority from Christ.
The New Testament repeatedly uses the word “ekklesia” which is mostly translated as “church.” The Greek word “ekklesia” identifies an actual assembly or congregation of believers gathered together in a particular place.
Paul wrote to “...the church of God which is at Corinth…” (1 Corinthians 1:2). That was a real congregation in a real city. He wrote to the “...churches of Galatia” (Galatians 1:2). Revelation addresses seven distinct churches in seven distinct places: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. These were not seven departments of one earthly headquarters. They were local assemblies in particular places.
When Jesus addressed the church at Ephesus in Revelation 2, He addressed that particular congregation. When He addressed the church at Smyrna, He addressed that particular congregation. The Lord did not tell one universal earthly bishop to govern all seven churches. Instead, Christ Himself addressed His churches. That is the biblical pattern: Christ is the Head, and His churches are local assemblies under His authority.
So, what about Peter and Rome? This brings us back to Peter and the traditional claim that he was the first pope. The Bible teaches that Peter would die a martyr's death. Jesus told Peter in John 21:18-19, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.” John then explains that Jesus was “...signifying by what death he should glorify God…” (John 21:18-19).
Peter being killed for his faith is not in question. What Scripture does not tell us is that this death occurred in Rome, nor does it tell us that Peter was the bishop of Rome.
The familiar story of Peter being crucified upside down in Rome is not found in the Scriptures. That detail comes from later tradition. Even if one accepts the historical tradition that Peter was martyred by crucifixion, that still does not establish the Roman Catholic doctrine of the papacy. A man being martyred in Rome would not, by itself, prove that he was the universal head of Christ's church, that he was the bishop of Rome, or that Christ established a succession of Roman bishops through him. Those are additional claims which must be demonstrated from Scripture.
So, where does Scripture place Peter? When we look at the New Testament, we find Peter's ministry described in a very different way. Paul gives us an important distinction in Galatians chapter 2. He writes, “But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter” (Galatians 2:7). He continues, “For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles” (Galatians 2:8). Then Paul says that the apostles gave him and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, “...that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision” (Galatians 2:9).
This is not a small distinction. Paul identifies his particular ministry with the Gentiles, while Peter's particular ministry was associated with the circumcision. This does not mean Peter could never speak to a Gentile or that Paul could never preach to a Jew. We know from the book of Acts that both men preached to people outside their primary roles. But there was a recognized distinction in their ministries. Peter was particularly entrusted with the gospel to the Jews, while Paul was particularly entrusted with the gospel to the Gentiles.
Now consider where Peter's own epistle is addressed. Peter writes, “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1 Peter 1:1). These were regions throughout Asia Minor, largely to what we know today as Turkey. Peter's first letter gives us direct biblical evidence of his ministry with believers throughout these regions.
Now, this does not prove that Peter was never in Rome. We must be careful not to argue beyond what the text actually establishes. Paul also wrote to the churches of Galatia, yet Scripture clearly places Paul in Rome during his ministry. The fact that Peter wrote to believers in Asia Minor cannot, by itself, prove that he never traveled to Rome.
What it does show us is where Scripture places Peter's focus. And that becomes important when we consider the Catholic claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and the head of the “universal church.”
If Peter was truly the first pope, then we should expect to find clear evidence that he was in Rome, that he served there as the supreme bishop of the so-called universal church, and that Christ established a continuing succession of bishops who would hold that same authority. Simply assuming that Peter went to Rome does not establish any of those things.
This does not mean that Peter could never have traveled to Rome. We should not claim that Scripture says something it does not say. But it does mean that when we look for biblical evidence placing Peter in Rome, the evidence is not there. Scripture gives us considerable information about Peter's ministry, yet it never says that Peter traveled to Rome, established the church at Rome, became its bishop, or died there.
And that matters because the Roman Catholic system requires much more than Peter simply visiting Rome. It requires Peter to occupy a unique position of universal authority and then pass that authority through a succession of Roman bishops. That is where the biblical evidence does not exist.
Now we come to a passage that deserves serious consideration. In Romans 15:20, Paul writes, “Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation.”
Paul tells us something about his missionary philosophy. He was striving to preach Christ where Christ had not already been named. He did not desire to build upon another man's foundation. This is significant because what Paul says here helps us understand the relationship he had with where he went to preach.
Paul continues in Romans 15:22, “For which cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you.” Paul had been occupied preaching the gospel throughout the regions where God had sent him. He says in verse 19, “...from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.” Then he explains his desire to go farther into places where Christ had not already been named.
Paul's statement in Romans 15:20 does not specifically say, “I will not preach where Peter preaches.” We should not put those words into Paul's mouth. But it does establish a principle that Paul did not want to build upon another man's foundation. When this is placed beside Galatians 2:7-9, where Paul's Gentile ministry is distinguished from Peter's ministry to the Jews, it gives us a significant picture of the arrangement.
Paul was not simply wandering from city to city without any particular purpose. He understood that God had given him a particular ministry. He says in Romans 11:13, “For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles…” He also calls himself in Romans 15:16 “...the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles…” His ministry was to establish the gospel among the Gentiles and to carry it into places where Christ had not already been named.
This brings us to another important point. Scripture explicitly records Paul going to Rome. Acts 28:16 says, “And when we came to Rome…” Luke then writes about Paul's ministry there. Paul is the apostle whose arrival in Rome is plainly recorded in Scripture.
In Romans 1:11, he tells them, “For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established.” Paul writes to Rome explaining that he wants to visit them personally and minister to them.
Paul also says in Romans 15:23, “But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you.” He had a desire to come to Rome, and he explains that his work in the regions where he had been laboring had reached a certain point. He then desired to go farther west, even toward Spain.
If Peter had already established the Roman church and served as its chief bishop, it would be reasonable to expect some indication of that in Paul's letter. Yet when Paul writes to the Romans, he never once mentions Peter by name. But as we mentioned earlier, he does say, “Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation” (Romans 15:20).
In Romans 16 Paul sends greetings to numerous individuals in Rome. He mentions Phoebe (Verse 1), Priscilla and Aquila (Verse 3), Epaenetus (Verse 5), Mary (Verse 6), Andronicus and Junia (Verse 7). Amplias (Verse 8), Urbane and Stachys (Verse 9). Apelles and the household of Aristobulus (Verse 10), Herodion and the household of Narcissus (Verse 11), Tryphena, Tryphosa and Persis (Verse 12). Rufus (Verse 13), Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes (Verse 14), Philologus, Julia, Nereus, Olympas (Verse 15), and others. Paul knows a number of people connected with the Roman church, yet Peter is never mentioned.
If Peter was the supreme bishop of Rome and the established head of the Roman church, his complete absence from Paul's extensive greetings is certainly something that deserves consideration. We should not pretend that silence alone proves Peter was never in Rome, but neither should we ignore that silence when someone claims that Scripture clearly establishes Peter as Rome's first bishop.
More importantly, Paul's letter itself does not present the Roman believers as belonging to a universal organization under the authority of a Roman bishop. Paul addresses them as a congregation of believers and teaches them the doctrine of Christ. Christ remains the center of the entire epistle.
What happens when Paul arrives in Rome? The book of Acts gives us another interesting piece of evidence. When Paul arrives in Rome, he calls together the chief Jews and speaks with them. In Acts 28:21 they tell him, “...We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came shewed or spake any harm of thee.” They then say in verse 22, “But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.”
Paul then spends time preaching to them, “...to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening” (Acts 28:23).
Again, there is no mention of Peter. Luke does not tell us that Paul is arriving at the church established by Peter. He does not tell us that Paul is meeting with Peter, submitting to Peter, or working under Peter's authority. Instead, Scripture gives us a picture of Paul arriving in Rome and carrying out his own God-given ministry.
This matters because the New Testament does not present Rome as the headquarters of Christ's church. Christ Himself is the Head of His church, and the apostles are His servants.
Some people may respond by asking, “What about Babylon?” They will often point to Peter’s closing words in his first letter: “The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son” (1 Peter 5:13).
This verse is often presented as though it settles the question. The traditional Roman Catholic interpretation is that “Babylon” is a symbolic name for Rome. There is an ancient history behind that interpretation, and it is not something we should simply dismiss without consideration. Rome is referred to as Babylon symbolically in the book of Revelation, and some early writers understood Peter to be using the name in that way.
But we need to be careful about what the text actually says. Peter does not write, “Rome.” He writes, “Babylon.” The identification of Babylon with Rome is an interpretation of the passage; it is not what the passage explicitly states.
That distinction matters because the entire argument for Peter being in Rome from this verse depends upon first assuming that Babylon means Rome. If Babylon is being used literally, then Peter is writing from Babylon. If Babylon is being used symbolically, then Rome becomes a possible location. But we cannot take the symbolic interpretation as though it were the plain statement of Scripture and then use that assumption as proof that Peter was in Rome.
Even John Gill, who acknowledged the ancient interpretation that Babylon referred figuratively to Rome, recognized the difficulty. He wrote that “Peter was at Rome, when he wrote this epistle, cannot be proved,” and questioned why the proper name of the place would be concealed while a figurative name was used. Gill ultimately understood Babylon literally, referring to Babylon in Assyria.
Clark and Pendleton wrote, “The Epistle purports to have been written from Babylon, and there is nothing that forbids our understanding this proper name in its literal sense. If it be said that Babylon had been destroyed, it may also be said that the city of Seleucia had grown up in the vicinity, and was often called Babylon. It is true, likewise, that in this city were many Jews.”
And that is important when we are examining a doctrine as significant as the claim that Peter was the first Pope and the head of the Roman church. We should not build such a doctrine upon an assumption and then treat the assumption as though it were Scripture.
If Peter was in Rome, we should be willing to look for clear biblical evidence of it. But when the strongest passage offered says “Babylon,” we cannot simply change Babylon to Rome because Rome is needed for the argument. We must let the text speak for itself.
So when 1 Peter 5:13 is brought forward as evidence that Peter was in Rome, we should not ignore the verse. We should examine it honestly. It may be argued that Babylon is symbolic of Rome, but it cannot be honestly claimed that the verse itself says Rome.
There is a difference between saying, “This verse may refer to Rome,” and saying, “The Bible says Peter was in Rome.” The first is an interpretation. The second is a claim about what Scripture explicitly teaches. Those two things should never be confused.
The significance of all of this goes beyond proving or disproving whether Peter visited Rome. The greater issue is the Headship of Christ over His church. Ephesians 1:22 says that God “...hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church.” Colossians 1:18 says again, “And he is the head of the body, the church…”
-Zach King-
