I've changed my dialogue partner's name to protect his identity.
[Edgar]
For one, I do not define the word "Church" (EKKLHSIA) in the same way that you do. The Church is not an institution as understood by the RCC and I have never said that I believe it is.
[Lamar]
Then you’ll have to specify what you mean by “church.” Also: (a) Was the early EKKLHSIA an institution in *any* manner at all? Was it organized? Was it visible? What criteria characterize an institution? (b) What, then, did Jesus mean when He said that He was building His EKKLHSIA upon Peter (cf. Matthew 16:18-19)? What type church, exactly, did He build? Which is more reasonable and makes more sense to say—that Jesus established an invisible communion of believers upon Peter or that a visible institution was founded upon Peter?
[Edgar]
(1) I define the word "church" (EKKLHSIA) in the same way (MUTATIS MUTANDIS) that Ralph Earle does: "the whole Body of Believers (the Church of Jesus Christ) and . . . local congregations--but never for a building, as today"(Earle 16).
Louw-Nida has this: "EKKLHSIA, AS [feminine]: the totality of congregations of Christians-'church' (Semantic Domain 11.33).
In contrast to the RCC, I think the Church is primarily made up of Jesus' anointed followers (those Christians who have the hope of subsisting immortally and incorruptibly in the heavens) and secondarily is composed of Christians with the hope of living forever on a paradise earth (Heb. 2:5). At any rate, the Church is never tied to the Bishop (in the NT) and it is never expressly linked to the Pope. That is where we differ, [sir].
(2) In his work "An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament" theologian Hans Conzelmann has a section entitled "The Church As An Institution." On page 303, he makes the following observation: "Paul knows no fixed organization. True, there are particular activities and positions (Phil. 1:1; 1 Cor. 12:28), but there is no hierarchy. There is a church order, but it does not in itself represent the nature of the church."
Therein lies my objection to the term "institution." I am not against defining Christianity in terms of community and even in terms of an organizational structure. Where I part ways with you is when it comes to construing the Church in hierarchical terms. In the first century there were no "bishops." The word itself is an anachronism superimposed on the biblical Greek text. It is manifestly clear that the first century Church did not have a system of bishops, priests, and deacons. As Elaine Pagels ("The Gnostic Gospels") points out--these developments were a result of second century Church politics.
(3) Jesus did not build his Church on Peter. You cannot conclusively demonstrate this assertion to be true. In BAGD, we read that PETRA either refers to "the apostle so named, or [to] the affirmation he has just made" (BAGD 1b). In context, I would choose the latter. Or to be more precise I would view the rock-mass as Christ himself. Certainly Peter seems to have thought that Christ and not he (Peter) was the foundation upon which the Christian EKKLHSIA was built. In 1 Pet. 2:6-8, Peter wrote in part: IDOU TIQHMI EN SION LIQON EKLEKTON AKROGWNIAION ENTIMON . . . KAI LIQOS PROSKOMMATOS KAI PETRA SKANDOLOU.
[Lamar]
Okay, so how was it that at any point in the history someone could readily and accurately identify those “true believers”? If true believers always existed, how could a person living in the 4th, 7th, 9th, 11th, and 15th centuries *properly* identify those true believers? After all, the WTS itself says that one criterion for salvation is identifying Jehovah’s organization and serving him as part of it. If Jesus’ Church were not a visible organization (i.e., an institution), then how was this identification made throughout history? Or did God leave a critical component of our salvation to mere happenstance or guesswork?
[Edgar]
The statement that you quote from the WTS must be viewed in its proper context. In the United in Worship (WTBTS) book, we are plainly told that Jesus originally planted "wheat" but the Devil scattered "weeds" in the same "field" that Jesus has sown "wheat." The "slaves of the householder" asked their Master whether he wanted them to collect the "tares" out from among the wheat. The Master (Jesus Christ) answered "no" because he did not want the wheat to be simultaneously pulled up with the weeds (indicating that true Christians would be hard to identify for a period of time).
The information that you cite from the WTS must be construed with the previously mentioned information in mind. While it is true that today one needs to identify God's organization in order to obtain salvation--such was not the case during the time periods you speak about. That is, there was a time when it was very hard to differentiate between false and genuine Christians. According to Scripture, God allowed this situation to obtain until the last days. In the harvest, Jesus foretold, there would be a separation work taking place. Until the weeding out occurred-true worshipers were dispersed and eternal salvation was not based one's religious group.
[Lamar]
Also, if true believers always existed, there must be some way to trace their *visible* existence through history; otherwise we’re left with saying that true believers exist, but we have no way of knowing who they are—and therefore we have no way of being able to identify Christ’s Church (and proper doctrine) and consequently we cannot serve Jehovah as part of it.
[Edgar]
I've answered your concern about not being a part of God's organization above. But please note that I am not saying we could not know who was and who was not practicing true Christianity. I hesitate to pass value judgments because I am not God (James 4:11, 12). Yet if Christians were living their lives in harmony with the Bible and imitating the first century apostles (even imperfectly)--I would say that we could safely conclude such individuals were truly "Christians" in God's eyes (2 Tim. 2:19). One member of the Greek Orthodox Church that I have long admired is Cyril Lucaris (17th century) whom the WT recently wrote about. This man was by no means perfect and he admittedly held what I would term "erroneous beliefs." But his views on Scripture and justification are quite impressive and he may well have been one of those whom Jehovah recognized as "wheat."
Edgar,
ReplyDeleteWhile I understand where you are coming from in stating this, could you please cite any Scriptural support for this statement:
"While it is true that today one needs to identify God's organization in order to obtain salvation--such was not the case during the time periods you speak about."
I find it difficult to biblically establish a different plan of salvation depending on which era of time one lives in during the post-apostolic age.
Dear Apologetic Front,
ReplyDeleteYou pose a good question. But my remarks must be viewed in their proper context. Jehovah's Witnesses take the position that those who seek to worship Jehovah must (generally speaking) serve God with his people. Examples like the ark of Noah's day, the nation of Israel or the Primitive ecclesia are given in the literature. However, there was once a time when truth was evidently obscured. We believe this development was foretold in the illustration given at Matthew 13 about the wheat and the tares (weeds). From the second century CE until the restoration of true worship in the 19th century, it was apparently difficult to identify members of God's wheat class. But that didn't mean there were no visible members of God's ecclesia on earth. I've often wondered about Cyril Lucaris and the WT literature has mentioned Wycliffe and Tyndale as possible wheat among the weeds.
Lastly, I have a problem with the expression "plan of salvation." We choose to use the more biblically grounded terminology "purpose" instead.
Acts17:30NIV"In the PAST God overlooked such ignorance,but NOW he commands all people everywhere to repent"
ReplyDeleteWould you agree?
ReplyDeleteThe first-century followers of Christ were an organized group (Ekklēsia) that followed the directions of Christ through the apostles and overseers or elders appointed. That assembly(Ekklēsia) of believers was an organization (an organized body of people with a particular purpose).
Christ Jesus speaks of founding his congregation on a rock-mass (peʹtra) (Mt 16:18), and Jesus himself is shown to be the one foundation. After Jesus resurrection, he told Peter to feed his sheep. This meant Jesus put trust in Peter, an imperfect man, to accomplish the work he was assigned. This also meant the people Peter fed would have to put faith in and listen to him even though he was imperfect.
Peter, the other apostles, and overseers were given a measure of authority in the congregation(Ekklēsia) of believers, and a structure was formed which is seen in the scriptures. Paul laid out qualifications for overseers who took the lead in the early congregation.
Paul wrote:
“For I did not receive [the gospel] from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” — Letter to the Galatians 1:12, written ca. 48–49 AD
He also stated.
2 Corinthians 13:3
3 since you are seeking proof that CHRIST, who is not weak toward you but strong among you, is really SPEAKING THROUGH ME.
Jesus was setting up an arrangement in the assembly of believers. If individuals did not follow the teachings of the apostles, they were to be rejected. Jesus had linked himself to the congregation, which the apostles and elders oversaw. By rejecting those taking the lead faithfully, they rejected Jesus and Jehovah. There was no Trinity or Jesus is Jehovah being taught by the apostles.
God's people were to be organized and united of the same mind, and they would be working to accomplish the work given to them. To say otherwise goes contrary to scripture. This arrangement still applies today. These scriptures show the arrangement and the measure of authority the overseers had. The apostles used the authority they had to try and sure the followers of Christ had unity of belief about God and Christ.
1 Timothy 3:1-7
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,2 sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
Titus 1:5-9
QUALIFICATIONS FOR ELDERS
5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you - 6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
(One who no longer meets these qualifications as an overseer will be removed.)
Continued...
ReplyDelete1 Timothy 5:17 — Berean Standard Bible
Elders who lead effectively are worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.
Ephesians 4:11 — The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
11 The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and TEACHERS,
1 Corinthians 12:28
Weymouth New testament
28 And by God's appointment there are in the Church—first Apostles, secondly Prophets, thirdly teachers. Then come miraculous powers, and then ability to cure diseases or render loving service, or POWERS OF ORGANIZATION, or varieties of the gift of 'tongues.'
WHY WOULD THEY NEED POWERS OF ORGANIZATION?
James 5:14–16 — 1890 Darby Bible (DARBY)
14 Is any sick among you? let him call to him the elders of the assembly, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith shall heal the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be one who has committed sins, it shall be forgiven him. 16 Confess therefore your offences to one another, and pray for one another, that ye may be healed. The fervent supplication of the righteous man has much power.
1 Peter 5:2–4 — The Lexham English Bible (LEB)
2 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not by compulsion but willingly, in accordance with God, and not greedily but eagerly, 3 and not as lording it over those under your care, but being examples for the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.
Acts 14:23 — 1890 Darby Bible (DARBY)
23 And having chosen them elders in each assembly, having prayed with fastings, they committed them to the Lord, on whom they had believed.
Acts 15:23-26
New International Version
23 With them they sent the following letter:
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 WE HAVE HEARD THAT SOME WENT OUT FROM US WITHOUT OUR AUTHORIZATION and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Acts 16:4 — New Century Version (NCV)
4 Paul and those with him traveled from town to town and GAVE THE DECISIONS MADE BY THE APOSTLES AND ELDERS in Jerusalem FOR THE PEOPLE TO OBEY.
1 Corinthians 14:37 — The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
37 Anyone who claims to be a prophet, or to have spiritual powers, MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WHAT I AM WRITING TO YOU IS A COMMAND OF THE Lord.
1 Thessalonians 4:1–2 — The Lexham English Bible (LEB)
1 Finally therefore, brothers, we ask you and appeal to you in the Lord Jesus that, just as YOU HAVE RECEIVED FROM US how it is necessary for you to live and to please God, just as indeed you are living, that you progress even more. 2 For you know WHAT COMMANDS WE GAVE TO YOU through the Lord Jesus.
1 Corinthians 1:10–11 — The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
10 Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters.
Romans 16:17 — 1890 Darby Bible (DARBY)
17 But I beseech you, brethren, to consider those who create divisions and occasions of falling, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learnt, and turn away from them.
Continued...
ReplyDelete1 Corinthians 5:9-13 ESV
9 I WROTE TO YOU IN MY LETTER NOT TO ASSOCIATE with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 BUT NOW I AM WRITING TO YOU NOT TO ASSOCIATE WITH ANYONE WHO BEARS THE NAME OF BROTHER if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
2 Thessalonians 3:6 — The New International Version (NIV)
6 In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, WE COMMAND YOU, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live ACCORDING TO THE TEACHING YOU RECEIVED FROM US.
2 Thessalonians 3:13–15 — The New International Version (NIV)
13 And as for you, brothers and sisters, never tire of doing what is good.
14 TAKE SPECIAL NOTE OF ANYONE WHO DOES NOT OBEY OUR INSTRUCTION IN THIS LETTER. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. 15 Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer.
Titus 3:10–11 — New Living Translation (NLT)
10 If people are causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with them. 11 For people like that have turned away from the truth, and their own sins condemn them.
1 Thessalonians 5:12,13
12 Now we request you, brothers, to show respect for those who are working hard among you and presiding over you in the Lord and admonishing you; 13 and to give them extraordinary consideration in love because of their work. Be peaceable with one another.
1 Thessalonians 5:27
I am putting you under the solemn obligation by the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
So, then, brothers, stand firm and MAINTAIN YOUR HOLD ON THE TRADITIONS THAT YOU WERE TAUGHT, whether it was by a SPOKEN message or BY A LETTER FROM US.
Hebrews 13:17 — 1890 Darby Bible (DARBY)
17 Obey your leaders, and be submissive; for they watch over your souls as those that shall give account; that they may do this with joy, and not groaning, for this would be unprofitable for you.
Hebrews 10:24–25 — 1890 Darby Bible (DARBY)
24 and let us consider one another for provoking to love and good works; 25 NOT FORSAKING THE ASSEMBLING OF OURSELVES TOGETHER, as the custom is with some; but encouraging one another, and by so much the more as ye see the day drawing near.
Acts 20 28
"Be shepherds of the church of God, which he acquired by means of his own Son's death." Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, Vol. 1, p. 565
Jehovah's Witnesses follow the early pattern or arrangement of the early Christians and teach the truth about Jehovah and his Son. To reject that arrangement set in scripture and those who are faithfully taking the lead is like rejecting Christ and God Almighty since they set forth this pattern.
*1 Timothy 4:16
16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. Persevere in these things, for by doing this you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.
You argue that the ekklesia in the New Testament refers to the entire body of believers and rejects the idea of the Church as a visible institution. However, the New Testament portrays the ekklesia as both a visible and organized entity, not just a mystical communion of believers.
ReplyDeleteThe early Christians had structured communities with clearly defined leadership roles (e.g., bishops, presbyters, and deacons). This is evident in Paul's letters, where he addresses specific churches with established leadership (e.g., Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:1-13). Furthermore, Jesus Himself speaks of a visible Church in Matthew 16:18-19, where He declares that He will build His Church upon Peter, giving him the keys of the kingdom. This implies a visible institution with governing authority.
You claim that ekklesia does not refer to an institution tied to a hierarchy, but the early Church did have elements of hierarchy, as seen in the appointment of leaders (bishops, presbyters, and deacons) and the recognition of apostolic authority. Even in its earliest form, the Church was both visible and hierarchical, contradicting your view that the early Church lacked institutional structure.
You deny that Jesus built His Church on Peter, suggesting instead that the "rock" in Matthew 16:18 refers either to Peter’s confession or to Christ Himself. However, this interpretation does not hold when considering the broader context of Scripture and early Church understanding.
Jesus explicitly names Peter (Greek: Petros) and then uses the word "Petra" (rock) to describe the foundation of His Church. While some argue that petra refers to Peter’s confession, early Church Fathers consistently understood this passage to mean that Peter himself was the foundation upon which the Church would be built. For example, Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian all affirmed Peter's unique role in the Church. Moreover, Peter is given the "keys of the kingdom" (Matthew 16:19), symbolizing authority, which further supports the Catholic understanding of Peter's primacy and the institutional nature of the Church.
Your position hinges on the Jehovah's Witness doctrine that distinguishes between two classes of believers: the 144,000 anointed who will go to heaven and the "great crowd" who will live on earth. This teaching is based on a literal interpretation of Revelation 7:4-9, but this interpretation is highly problematic.
First, the 144,000 in Revelation is symbolic, not literal. The numbers in Revelation are often symbolic, representing completeness or fulfillment (e.g., 12 tribes of Israel, 12 apostles). The reference to the 144,000 signifies the totality of God's people, both Jews and Gentiles, rather than a literal, restricted number of individuals. Moreover, Revelation 7:9 speaks of a "great multitude" that no one can count, standing before God's throne and the Lamb, which indicates that all the redeemed are together in the presence of God, not separated into two distinct classes.
Second, the idea of a two-class system is foreign to the New Testament and early Christian tradition. In Scripture, all believers are called to one hope (Ephesians 4:4), and Paul frequently emphasizes the unity of the Church as one body (1 Corinthians 12:12-13). There is no indication that early Christians believed in two distinct hopes—one for heaven and one for earth. Instead, the New Testament consistently portrays the Church as a single community destined for eternal life with God.
ReplyDeleteYou argue that the true Church was not a visible institution for much of history and that true believers were scattered and hard to identify. This claim is problematic because it undermines the biblical teaching that Christ’s Church would endure throughout history and be identifiable.
Jesus promised that His Church would never be overcome by the gates of hell (Matthew 16:18), implying that the true Church would remain visible and enduring throughout history. The idea that there was no identifiable Church for centuries contradicts this promise. Furthermore, the writings of the early Church Fathers, such as Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus, affirm the visible, hierarchical nature of the Church and its continuity from the apostles. Ignatius, in particular, stresses the importance of unity with the bishop as a sign of true Christian faith (e.g., Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8:2).
You suggest that Christian leaders are not "leaders" in the hierarchical sense but rather lead by example. While Christian leaders are certainly called to lead by example (1 Peter 5:3), this does not negate their role as authoritative shepherds of the flock. The New Testament clearly supports the idea of leaders who exercise authority in the Church. Hebrews 13:17, for instance, instructs believers to "obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls." This indicates that Church leaders do hold positions of authority and responsibility.
The argument that elders "take the lead" but are not "leaders" is a semantic distinction that does not reflect the biblical teaching on Church leadership. Elders, bishops, and deacons were entrusted with specific roles and responsibilities within the Church, and their leadership was recognized by the community. The early Church, as evidenced in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, clearly upheld a structured leadership with bishops playing a central role in guiding and preserving the faith.
In this dialogue, Mr. Foster, representing a Jehovah's Witness perspective, argues that while today, one must identify God's organization to obtain salvation, this was not always the case in prior historical periods. He further claims that true worshipers were dispersed from the second century until the "restoration of true worship" in the 19th century, making it difficult to identify true Christians during that time.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that there was a period when it was difficult to identify true Christians is problematic from both a scriptural and historical standpoint. Mr. Foster’s position implies that God's salvific plan changed over time, which contradicts the biblical teaching that God's means of salvation and His covenant with humanity are consistent throughout history.
Hebrews 13:8 states, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." Salvation has always been through Christ and His Church, not dependent on one's ability to identify an organization at a specific point in time. Throughout history, salvation has always been rooted in faith in Jesus Christ and obedience to His teachings (Acts 4:12, John 14:6).
Jesus promised in Matthew 16:18 that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. This means that the Church, as a visible and enduring entity, would remain identifiable throughout all ages. To claim that the true Church was hidden or difficult to identify for over a millennium contradicts Christ’s assurance of the Church’s perpetual presence.
Mr. Foster refers to the parable of the wheat and the weeds (Matthew 13:24-30) to justify the claim that true worship was obscured until the 19th century. However, this interpretation misreads the parable and its context. Actually the parable of the wheat and weeds does not suggest a hidden Church. In the parable, both the wheat (true believers) and the weeds (false believers) grow together until the final judgment. This does not mean that true believers are unrecognizable or that the Church is obscured. Rather, it indicates that within the visible Church, there will always be a mixture of true and false believers, but the Church itself remains present and visible.
Actually the Church has always had a visible presence. Even in times of difficulty, persecution, or corruption, there have always been faithful Christians and Church leaders who preserved the true faith. Church history attests to this, as evidenced by the writings of the early Church Fathers and the continuous line of apostolic succession.
Mr. Foster suggests that there was a long period in history when identifying true Christians was difficult, yet this contradicts both Scripture and historical evidence. Actually Christ established a visible and enduring Church. Matthew 28:19-20 records Jesus' command to the apostles to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them and teaching them to obey everything He commanded. This commission, along with Christ’s promise to be with His Church “always, to the very end of the age,” underscores the visibility and continuity of the Church. There was never a time when the Church ceased to exist or was unidentifiable.
Throughout history, the Catholic Church, along with the Orthodox and other ancient Christian traditions, has maintained an unbroken line of apostolic succession. This is evidenced by the writings of early Church Fathers, such as Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, who affirmed the importance of unity with the bishop and the apostolic tradition. The idea that the Church disappeared or was obscured for centuries contradicts historical evidence.
According to the Protestants, the Catholic Church has gone astray, and moreover, it leads others astray, with Satan himself guiding it. Well, according to our faith, the Catholic Church has never changed concerning the teachings of Christ, and it can be clearly proven (with countless documents) that the current Catholic doctrine is completely identical to that of the Church before the Constantinian shift. Even the Protestants acknowledge this. It can also be proven that no congregation similar to 15th-century Protestantism existed earlier. They often refer to various heretical sects as the carriers of the "true gospel," but they merely select teachings similar to their own from these sects, while no Protestant church adheres to the full teachings of any of these sects (some of which are quite grotesque). Thus, essentially, a Protestant claims that the true gospel of Christ was corrupted shortly after the apostles (within a few years or decades), Satan—whom the Lord had just recently defeated—took over the main role and seduced all Christian believers.
ReplyDeleteA man finally came along one and a half millennia (!) later, by the name of Martin Luther, a hot-tempered, rebellious, psychologically proven disturbed and uncertain monk, who, based on “a divine revelation” (which, according to his own admission, he received while on the toilet), finally restored the teachings of Christ and thus reopened the gates of heaven. For one and a half millennia, for 1500 years, no one could be saved because they did not know Protestant teachings, they were “idolaters” and “pagans.” For 1500 years, Christ helplessly watched His church serve Satan, even though He promised that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Mt 16:18), and He said, "And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (Mt 28:20), “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—the Spirit of truth.” (Jn 14:16), “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand." (Jn 10:27-29). So just consider how likely all of this is.
Not only Catholics, but also Protestants and so-called "independent" historians are clear on the fact that Peter certainly went to Rome, established a Christian community (= founded a church), and also died a martyr's death there. This is not only confirmed by early Christian literary and historical records — since without exception all early Christian writers associate Peter with Rome — but also completely supported by archaeological research. In 1968, the tunnels beneath the main altar of St. Peter's Basilica were excavated, and indeed, there they found a tomb from the first century, sealed by a rock bearing the inscription "Peter is here." Even the bones inside have been examined, and it turned out that they belong to a man in his sixties, who died by crucifixion in the first century. Moreover, in cities Peter passed through on his way to Rome, many things preserve the memory of his presence. Despite all this, some Protestant fundamentalists do not believe (or do not want to believe) that Peter went to Rome, simply because, according to them, the Bible is silent on the matter. For them, only the text of the Bible can provide a sure point of reference, and only as they interpret it. In their view, if the Bible does not mention it, then it could not have happened; and it makes no difference that the Bible does not deny that Peter went to Rome.
Indeed, the Scriptures do not explicitly mention that "Peter went to Rome, founded a church, and thus became the first bishop of Rome, or the pope." The travels of no apostle are recounted in detail, and even of the most discussed, the journeys of Saint Paul, we do not have a complete picture, and we only learn of his death from tradition. The claim that "Paul wrote six letters from Rome between AD 60 and 65" is also not found in the Bible, though it is considered accepted by this "Bible Christian." This, for example, comes from Protestant tradition, which furthermore—according to at least 95% of biblical scholars—is not even true. Paul most likely wrote only one letter from Rome, the Second Letter to Timothy, while the others—thought by some to originate from his Roman imprisonment—were written during his imprisonment in Ephesus between 53 and 58 (Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians), or before his arrest in Rome, on his third missionary journey in 63-64 (1 Timothy, Titus). In 1 Timothy, Peter is not mentioned because by then he had already died. Nor does he mention him in the Letter to the Romans because at the time of writing, Peter was not in Rome (more on this later). As an apostle, Saint Peter was continuously traveling—just like Paul—not only to evangelize or to care for the churches he had founded, but also because he was in danger. From the beginning, the leader of the new "sect" was persecuted, not only by the Jews but also by Roman authorities. Rome became the number one enemy of Christians, and this latter fact (confirmed by numerous Roman records) implies that the Bible speaks of Peter’s stay in Rome.
ReplyDeleteIn the First Letter of Peter, the apostle writes, “She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark." (1 Peter 5:13). At this time, two places were named Babylon: the ancient, famous Mesopotamian city, frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, and a small Roman garrison in Egypt (Babylon Fossatum). However, by then, the ancient Babylon no longer existed, except as ruins, and was as insignificant a settlement as the Egyptian Babylon. What would Peter, the foremost apostle, have been doing in either of these small villages? Nothing, because these are not the places being referred to. The Book of Revelation frequently speaks of Babylon but consistently as a “great and mighty city,” which can be clearly identified with Rome (cf. 14:8; chs. 16-18) (and in one case, with Jerusalem). Independent ancient sources also confirm that “Babylon” was a code name among Christians, referring to Rome. Therefore, Peter wrote his first letter from “Babylon”, that is, from Rome. This is also confirmed by the Acts of the Apostles. It says that after Peter miraculously escaped from prison, he “went to another place” (Greek: "eis héteron topon") (Acts 12:17). Here, Peter did not wish to hide his destination from his brothers, but he did from the Roman authorities. Therefore, he used this Greek phrase, which refers to the Book of Ezekiel, specifically Ezekiel 12:13, where this exact phrase is used. From this, we know that the "other place" is Babylon, or Rome. This event occurred around AD 42, meaning Peter founded the Christian community there at that time, but he did not remain permanently, as by AD 48, he was in Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council.
Saint Paul wrote the Letter to the Romans between AD 55-57, and he does not greet Peter because Peter was not in the city at that time; he only returned there a few years after the letter was written, around AD 60. Although Peter was not in Rome, Paul indirectly alludes to him, writing: "It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation... This is why I have often been hindered from coming to you." (Romans 15:20.22).
ReplyDeleteIf we combine the scriptural references with archaeological findings and early Christian records, we get a consistent picture where all elements support each other. However, if we reject Peter's founding of the church in Rome, we are merely following an unreasonable prejudice instead of reason. One can choose.
If you are seriously interested in the topic, here is a recommended read: Carsten Peter Thiede [a Protestant scholar]: Simon Peter: From Galilee to Rome (1988).