mention of Peter. Now Peter ought on no account to be so slighted if indeed he presided over that church. Paul was afterwards brought as a prisoner to Rome, and Luke records in Acts 28:15 that he was met by the breth ren of that city—but still there is no mention of Peter. From Rome, Paul wrote the Prison Epistles of Ephe sians, Philippians and Colossians, and in these there are the names of many of the brethren who were with him and comforted him, yet once more there is a singular silence when it comes to the name of Peter. If Peter indeed were in Rome, with the re sponsibility of being the bishop of that church and with the dignity at tendant unto the supreme representa tive of Jesus Christ upon earth, it is incredible that Paul should have con stantly passed over him in total si lence. Even worse, in Philippians 2:19-21 Paul states that with the ex ception of Timothy, all those with him at Rome “ seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ’s,” while in 2 Timothy 4:16 he makes an even heavier complaint, that at the first “ all men forsook me: I pray God it mav not' be laid to their charge.” Where was Peter then? If in deed he were in Rome, as some say, then Paul fixes upon him the ig nominy of being a deserter of the gosnel. The truth of the matter is this, that there is no real evidence that Peter went to Rome at all, and that the supremacy finally achieved by the bishop at Rome came gradually, and that only after a sharp contest with the bishop of Constantinople over the matter of primacy. With the true church scattered and persecuted for the first three hundred years, with all the Western bishops on an equal ity until the sack of Rome in the fifth century, and with no pope until Gregory the Great in the sixth cen tury, it seems safe to say that “ apos tolic succession” was utterly impossi ble for nearly six hundred years of the church’s history. Add to this the re moval of the papal court from Rome to Avignon, France, in the fourteenth century, followed by the spectacle of three popes simultaneously excom municating and anathematizing each other in the papal schism of the fif teenth century, and the theory be comes incredible that the present pon tiff in Rome is the direct successor to some supposed authority committed to Peter twenty centuries ago. In Part II of this study, Peter’s relationship to the early church will be examined, with additional Bible evidence that Peter would not and could not be the first pope of the church. (To be continued)
Doctrinal Pointers by Gerald B. Stanton, Th. D. Prof, of Systematic Theology, Talbot Theological Seminary
W a s P e t e r the F irst P op e ? Part One
I t is not the purpose of this article to discuss the ministry of the Apos tle known as Simon Peter or to evaluate his life and testimony in re spect to his influence upon the early Christian chinch. Although “ a man of like passions,” subject to both spir itual defeat and personal compromise, he stands nevertheless a leader of giant proportions among the twelve personal disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ and among the preachers of first century Christianity. The worth of his leadership, the value of his epistles, and the dynamic example of his personal devotion few would dare to deny. The question to be investi gated does not concern his promi nence as a disciple as such, but whether or not Christ invested him with special authority as head of the visible church and whether or not he ever resided' in Rome as a bishop, holding a spiritual primacy that has been passed on unchanged to his suc cessors. As in previous centuries, Protes tants today are faced by a vast re- ligio-political empire which claims to speak for God and to possess “ coercive power even to the extent of the death sentence” over all who do not sub scribe to her dominion. The basis for her sweeping claims lies chiefly in the supposed “ Petrine supremacy” found in Matthew 16:18, 19. Upon this ap parent foundation is built a super structure of mammoth proportions; joggle this stone and the whole struc ture topples. For this reason, the ques tion, “Was Peter the first Pope?” is highly significant, and because all manner of false doctrine has been built upon Rome’s affirmative answer to this question, it is entirely in or der to consider in this column some of the issues involved. James Cardinal Gibbons defines “ Primacy of Peter” as follows: “ The Catholic Church teaches that our Lord conferred on St. Peter the first place of honor and jurisdiction in the gov ernment of His whole Church, and that the same spiritual supremacy
has always resided in the popes, or bishops of Rome, as being the suc cessors of St. Peter. Consequently, to be true followers of Christ all Chris tians, both among the clergy and the laity, must be in communion with the See of Rome, where Peter rules in the person of his successor” (Faith of Our Fathers, p. 95). The discussion to follow will be along three lines: (1) Was Peter ever the bishop of- Rome? (2) What was Peter’s relation ship to the early church? and (3) What is the interpretation of the key passage, Matthew 16:18? Of neces sity, the treatment of these important issues must be marked by the greatest brevity, outlining rather than discuss ing fully the clear light which the Scriptures of God cast upon the claims of men. It is strongly recommended to the reader that he read fully and carefully the many Bible references alluded to, that our faith may stand on tile Word of God rather than in the wisdom of men. Was Peter Ever the Bishop of Rome? It is most doubtful if Peter ever went to Rome at all, yet alone became its first bishop. If there were any real proof for either of these possibilities, it is most evident that some would broadcast such proof to the world and exploit it to the limit, which they have been unable to do. Now accord ing to Galatians 1:18-2:14, Peter min istered in and around Jerusalem for some twenty -years after the death of Christ, after which he' went to An tioch. If there were any primacy com mitted to Peter, it would have been passed on to the bishops of one of these first cities and not to the bishops of Rome. Moreover, Peter was known particularly as the Apostle to the Jews, and not to the Gentiles as would have been the case if he had ministered primarily in Rome. Even more significant, Paul wrote to the Christians dwelling at Rome, and in the sixteenth chapter of Romans men- •tioned by name a long list of the leading Christians of Rome to whom he extended greetings, yet there is no
25
S E P T E M B E R 1 9 5 3
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs