"Peter Was the First Bishop of Rome"?
Is this just one of those weeks that everybody sounds nuts? Is someone trying to test our sanity? Both this article and the one inside leave a person of sound mind scratching his head and wondering. Usually, reading Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College, is enjoyable; most of the time the reader feels edified, but in the July/August, 2017 issue it would seem that someone was on vacation. The main article was written by a Professor of Apologetics at Houston Baptist University. That a Baptist would write the following words is incredible: "Peter is the rock. That's what the name Peter means. You don't have to be a Catholic to recognize that Peter was the first bishop of Rome...." What??
Most non-Catholics know that Jesus made a play on words in Matthew 16:18. Jesus said, "You are Petros, and on this petra I will build My church." There are three differences in the two italicized words: 1) Petros is a proper name and capitalized in the Greek. But the word petra is not capitalized; 2) Petros is masculine, but petra is feminine; 3) Petros refers to a sturdy rock or stone or something larger, while petra usually refers to a ledge or cliff. Peter would indeed be part of the foundation of the church, but Jesus is the chief cornerstone (Eph. 2:20).
To say that Peter is the rock—without any explanation—is to insinuate that the church is built on Peter rather than on the apostles, prophets, and particularly Jesus. The rock in Matthew 16:18 refers to the truth that Peter had confessed—the Deity of Jesus. Peter had just affirmed, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" (v. 16). This is the foundation of Christianity that distinguishes it from any other world religion. No one else is Divine. Neither Muhammad, nor Buddha, nor anyone else is the Son of the Living God, born of a virgin. No one else was qualified to die for our sins. And that includes Peter, which is the reason that petra cannot refer to him, either.
Where does the Professor of Apologetics get the notion that Peter is the first bishop of Rome? The Scriptures do not say so. Peter, along with the other apostles, stayed in Jerusalem. They remained there even after the persecution (Acts 8:1, 4). In Acts 10 Peter was in Joppa when summoned to meet with Cornelius. In Acts 12 he was still in Jerusalem, as in Acts 15. After several missionary journeys, Paul ended up in Rome, but does not say one word about seeing Peter there (Acts 28). When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (about A.D. 57), he mentions that Peter was traveling with his wife (1 Cor. 9:5). When Paul wrote Romans, he did not greet Peter, which would be odd if he were a bishop there. Besides, there is no such thing as the bishop (see what Peter wrote in 1 Peter 5:1-4). In 1 Peter 5:13, Peter mentions being in Babylon (which some interpret as Rome). Nothing indicates he was actually in Rome, let alone bishop of the city. Such an assertion is incredible!