|
|
|
|
Was Peter ever in Rome? In Acts 10:2, Cornelius is called an upright Gentile, a devout man, and one who feared God. In Acts 10:17, Cornelius has a vision of an angel; he follows God’s instruction and is led to meet Peter in Joppa. In Acts 10, we also see Peter still being kosher, obeying the Old Testament law on food, by not eating certain meats. God gives him a vision to eat the ‘unclean animals, ' and God tells him they are now clean. God then wants him to go to the Gentiles, of which he is reluctant to do. Around the same time, Cornelius arrives at his house, he’s staying in Joppa, “ Peter wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant.” Peter goes to Cornelius’ house the next day, Acts 10:28, he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean” He then hears of Cornelius' angelic visit and understands what God is doing, and then proceeds to tell him about Jesus, his death, and resurrection. Acts 10:44-46 “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.”And “ those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles.” This is what is meant by Peter being given the keys; he opened the door to the Gentiles as he did to the Jews at Pentecost. They became the first Gentiles saved, and the outreach to non-Jews had begun. Acts 11:1, the apostles and brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles received the Word and were saved. A short while after a gathering of “apostles and elders” at Jerusalem around A.D. 45-50, described in Acts 15:4-29, was convened on Paul's initiative, not Peter's. Peter then returns to Jerusalem to the council that James and others are overseeing in Jerusalem and explains what took place, (this was not “the first church meeting like this). Peter then reported all things that God had done with them.” They also listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles.” James then sums up what God is doing, Acts 15:19: “The apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.” In v. 23 it says the apostles and the brethren who are elders. It’s not Peter who decides; they all do, and they all agree on a letter to the other main center in Antioch.There is no Roman church as the center; the Jewish apostles and evangelists now go out into Gentile territory to give them the gospel. The next time we see Rome mentioned in Scripture is in Acts 18:2. “That Emperor Claudius commanded all the Jews to leave Rome, this would include Peter if he was there. If he stayed, he would then be executed for disobeying Rome’s order to go. Some tradition says he died in Rome, which means he couldn't have been a Pope over the whole Church, for he was executed. Exactly when did Peter go to Rome to be established as Pope over the church? Let me first say this is a fantasy teaching, because the church was an illegal, persecuted religion for hundreds of years. So there is no known church ruling in a city like Rome claims. Paul says after he was saved (Acts 9), Gal 1:18 “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days.” Why did he find him in Jerusalem? Because Peter was called to be the apostle to the Jews who were still in their land (until 70 AD). Paul writes, Gal 2:7-8, “the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles). In Acts 4:19-22, we read of Peter and John healing a man, and he was brought before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. They were threatened not to witness, and they let them go. They went back to their people in Israel, not Rome. We next hear of Rome, Acts 19:21 “Paul purposed in the Spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, 'After I have been there, I must also see Rome.” Macedonia is in northern Greece, and Achaia is in the southern district, of which Corinth is the capital. Acts 23:11 The Lord says to Paul; For as you have testified for Me in Jerusalem, so you must also bear witness at Rome.” We see nothing in the Bible of Peter being sent to Rome. In Peter's greeting in 1 Peter 5:13, “ She who is in Babylon, elect together with you, greets you; and so does Mark my son.” Some claim “Babylon” was a code name for Rome, and Peter used it to avoid persecution or to emphasize the similarities between the two empires. This letter does not confirm he is writing from Babylon; he could have passed on their Shalom for them. The book of Revelation also mentions Babylon, and a common interpretation, as it is likened to Rome (Revelation 14:8; 16:19 ; 17:5 ; 18:2 ). If that's what they want Rome to be identified as, it's all yours. However, another interpretation is that Peter is in Iraq because that is where the city of Babylon was and is today. Which apostle does the Bible say went to Rome? Acts 19:21 Paul says, “I must also see Rome.” Acts 23:11, the “Lord says you bear witness at Rome.” Do you see anything mentioned about Peter? I looked and cannot find any. Paul writes a letter to the Romans 1:7 (his longest letter), “To all who are in Rome , beloved of God, called to be saints. Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Notice they are ALL called saints; they did not need any particular church to vote on this. Rom. 1:13-15 “Now I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that I often planned to come to you (but was hindered until now), that I might have some fruit among you also, just as among the other Gentiles. … I am ready to preach the gospel to you who are in Rome also.” Meaning that many have not heard the gospel. Paul later preached the gospel in Rome. When he writes to the church, he mentions numerous people, but not Peter. Why? Because Peter was not there! In his closing of his letter to the Romans, Paul greets 28 individuals, plus various unnamed “brothers and sisters” and “the Lord’s people” (Romans 16:3–15). Yet Peter is never mentioned. Why? Did he not like Peter? No, it's because he was not in Rome. In Acts 28:16, we find Paul is taken to Rome as a prisoner guarded by a centurion. As Paul writes his letter to the Gentiles in Rome, Peter addressed his first letter “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia ” (1 Peter 1:1). He does not mention Rome or the Gentiles. Pontus is located in the northeastern part of Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey). Galatia is also in Turkey. Cappadocia is in northern Turkey by the black sea. Bithynia is also northwestern Anatolia by the black sea. Why is he writing them? These are Jews (believers) that he knew were in these regions from the dispersion. Peter also writes this of Paul in his second letter , “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 [twist], as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction (2 Peter 3:15,16). Peter acknowledges Paul's writings to be Scripture; what we do not find in Peter's letter, we do find in Paul’s. Tradition, from Roman Catholicism, says Peter was a bishop in Rome’s church, but then this would be against what he was called to do, to be a traveling evangelist to the Jews. He did not settle in any one area, and even Paul did not stay long in any area of the Gentiles he was called to. Roman Catholicism claims to be the true church, tracing back to the original apostles. That its papal (pope) authority comes directly from Christ through Peter by a long and unbroken line of apostolic succession, one can say whatever they want to. Still, it’s a whole other matter to prove it, especially from the apostle's words. This is one reason why sola Scriptura is so important and is challenged by the Roman Catholic church. There is no apostolic succession because there were 12 apostles, and none of them was a Pope. I suggest that if Rome does not select a Jew to be Pope, how is it a succession? There is no office of a Pope in the Bible. Peter did not personally lay hands on anyone for succession; no one did . In Roman Catholicism, each pope did not choose his own successor! In fact, Jesus warned Matt 20:25-26 “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you ; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.” Luke 22:25-27 “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called 'benefactors.' “ Mark 10:42-43” those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.” Each time he says that is not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant.” It's Gentiles who are of the nations that want to be rulers. Consider all the titles the Popes apply to themselves. Peter later writes that church leaders were not to act as “lords over God's church” but, like Christ, were to be “examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:1-4). “ Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock” V.5 “younger people, submit yourselves to your elders. Yes, all of you be submissive to one another.” That is certainly not the Roman Catholic model of our day. The early church was underground, illegal for hundreds of years. The Bible has nothing else to say about Rome except for Paul’s letter to them. The Popes came years after, hundreds of years after, in Rome when Constantine officially stopped the persecution (early 300s) and allowed Christianity in the Roman Empire. When Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (178-200 AD), provided a list of the first 12 Bishops of Rome. Linus was actually the first, but he was not called a Pope. Peter's name does not appear anywhere. Eusebius of Caesarea, who recorded church history under Emperor Constantine (trust him with a grain of salt), never mentions Peter as Bishop of Rome. What he does say is that Peter came to Rome “about the end of his days” and was crucified there. It is also Catholic tradition that claims Peter was martyred in Rome under the rule of Emperor Nero, which certainly does not coincide with his being a Pope. It's all a fictitious story for control. Look at what they tell the world today. Rome wants you to believe they have the rock upon which Christ built His Church, which makes Peter the first Pope. Proved by the Scripture “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:16, 18. But in a certain sense, the gates did prevail as Peter was killed, so how is he the rock? There is not a shred of proof he ruled from Rome, even as a bishop, much less a Pope. Catholics need to get their heads into the book, away from their made-up traditions. The only Rock upon which we are told to build on, is taught by Jesus himself (and Peter). The “wise man built his house” on the rock, which was Christ and His teachings (Matthew 7:24-29) not Peter. It is Peter who points us to Christ as the “chief cornerstone” upon which the church is built (1 Peter 2:6-8), all the apostles agree. So the choice is to listen to those who claim apostolic successors or the apostles themselves. The apostles wrote one source, the other they did not. This is why primary resources instead of second-hand sources or opinions are so important. pt.2 The Roman church's conception |
|
