THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH

LOL...oh I forgot. Everything written by Christians outside the NT is "tradition", not history.

You are the one who pointed out that it was tradition. If you wanted to say it was history.....then why didn't you?

I was merely pointing out the obvious.....that even you consider it tradition, not history! I should have indicated the levity of the situation by posting "LOL".....but I didn't want you to think I was laughing at you.

But how would Peter know that since Revelations was not written until 96 AD.

That's a good point, but when you look at the geography of the area to which he writing [1 Peter 1:1-2].....and to whom he's writing, the answers are obvious. Babylon is no more cryptic that Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia.

The Israelites had been placed on the north and west borders of Assyria primarily to act as a buffer. It would not be strange at all to find some of them 700 years later somewhat north and west of there, now settled on the shores of the Black Sea.

No, Peter is speaking of Babylon on the Euphrates. There is no evidence that Rome was ever referred to as Babylon until John wrote of it in Revelation. We are in agreement. This would have been long after Peter had died and there is nothing in his letter that appears cryptic.....or apocalyptic. Peter is blunt to the point of being extremely plain. There is nothing mystical about this letter and he is very direct in stating his message.

In A.D. 40, three years after Paul's conversion, Peter is still hanging around Jerusalem [Galatians 1:18]. He is imprisoned (by Herod Agrippa 1) but miraculously escapes [Acts 12:5-11] and Herod dies [Acts 12:23] in the fourth year of the reign of Claudius (A.D. 45). Paul again visits Peter in Jerusalem [Galatians 2]....14 years later and they agree on who should evangelize who. Paul to the Gentiles and Peter to the Israelites. It is now A.D. 54 and as far as I can tell Peter hasn't traveled too far! Peter does go to Antioch soon after where Paul had established his headquarters [Acts 15:35] and they have their famous meeting [Galatians 2:11-14].

From then to about A.D. 60 Peter evidently made a evangelistic journey throughout the eastern areas....taking along his wife [1 Corinthians 9:5] and it is assumed that Peter stayed in the east (Babylon) since about the same time Paul is writing from Rome, saluting 27 different people and Peter is absent....and is not even mentioned [Romans 16]. Paul probably doesn't allude to him at all because he has never been there. The church was Gentile and he would have had no business there to begin with.

Paul finally gets to Rome about 63 A.D., writes four epistles (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon) and never mentions Peter. He states in [2 Timothy 4:11] that only Luke is with him. This is during his second trip to Rome about 67/68 A.D. shortly before his death.

But how would Peter know that since Revelations was not written until 96 AD. No writer, secular or religious, ever referred to Rome as Babylon until after John's Revelation began to circulate.

But this reasoning is circular. You can't assert "no writer ever referred to Babylon until after John's Revelation" and then use that to argue against any previous instance. If this is Rome that Peter is talking about, then that is your earlier reference right there. John could well have gotten it from Peter.

You are the one who pointed out that it was tradition. If you wanted to say it was history.....then why didn't you?

I feel no need whatsoever to draw such a bright line between the two concepts--one is the oral form, the other the written. During WWII, my grandfather served in Africa, my other grandfather made munitions at a factory. How do I know those things? Not through any books but from the tradition my family has passed down. I have no documentation of either of those events...yet I know intimately some of the principals involved, so I am certain the tradition is true. If I ever decided to write about those things, I'd be writing history based on tradition. See, it's not so easy to pick the two apart.

On the other hand, I well know how easy it is for some here to simply toss Christian authors of the 1st - 3rd centuries into the "tradition" pile and thereby invalidate their whole credibility. So sometimes I am a little more circumspect about using that word.

I was merely pointing out the obvious.....that even you consider it tradition, not history! I should have indicated the levity of the situation by posting "LOL".....but I didn't want you to think I was laughing at you.

Feel free to laugh! Humility is a virtue. :)

Show me from Scripture an instance of such subordination and we'll go from there.

Council of Jerusalem presided over by James with Peter as one of the participants. After much discussion and argument Peter spoke.

Acts 15:
[7] And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
[8] And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us;
[9] and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith.
[10] Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
[11] But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."
[12] And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.
[13] After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brethren, listen to me.
[14] Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

[15] And with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written,
[16] `After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up,
[17] that the rest of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
[18] says the Lord, who has made these things known from of old.'
[19] Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,

Barnabas and Paul spoke, and James, after listening to the entire discussion, prounounced his judgment.

Peter was a participant, not the leader.

There is no evidence that Rome was ever referred to as Babylon until John wrote of it in Revelation. We are in agreement. This would have been long after Peter had died and there is nothing in his letter that appears cryptic.....or apocalyptic.

We are not in agreement at all. First of all, I don't define 30-odd years as "long after Peter died". Peter died in around 66-7, John was writing mid-90s. And Peter's letter was addressed specifically to the churches of Asia Minor...where John was. So I don't have any doubt that John was very familiar with Peter's letter--and it would be as natural as anything for John to pick up on Peter's reference to Rome as Babylon and expand on it in Revelations. The "fact" that Rome was not mentioned as Babylon earlier than Revelations is predicated on the resolution of this question in 1 Peter: if it is Rome, then the first-mention-in-Revelations position obviously can't be sustained.

As to the non-apocalyptic tone of Peter's letter, he didn't have to be writing an apocalypse in order to do a simple play on the city. He may have been cryptic about the city name for a reason...perhaps persecution.

Paul probably doesn't allude to him at all because he has never been there. The church was Gentile and he would have had no business there to begin with.

Paul says in Romans 15:20 that he has been "hindered from coming" to them because his aim was "to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, that I might not build upon another man's foundation." If a) the Church in Rome was solely Gentile and b) Paul was the only Apostle to the Gentiles, then how could it be that an Apostle was there founding a church before him? Seems to me somebody besides Paul had business there, and probably somebody big by the sound of it.

And as to why Paul does not salute Peter in Romans, Peter may well have been galavanting around and not in the city. Priscilla and Aquila left when Claudius expelled the Jews...Peter may have as well. It is pretty clear (to me anyway) that Peter was not in Rome the whole time. He made trips to other places, as you mention. That in no way contradicts the fact that he came to Rome and that he died there.

Peter was a participant, not the leader.

Mmm...I don't see that. James has a very prominent role, no question. And perhaps supporting your argument is that he says "it is my judgment" in Acts 15:19...but then you see right after that it's the apostles and presbyters in union with the Church that send Paul and the letter to Antioch.

Yet I wouldn't minimize Peter's influence here either. There was "much debate" (v. 7) until Peter spoke. After Peter speaks, "the whole assembly fell silent" (v. 12). Then when James gets up, the first thing he does is cite Peter (v. 14), and then says essentially the same thing that Peter did.

I don't want to turn this into which Apostle has more authority, but I think it's clear that they both assumed a particular leadership here, and that Peter was very much more than simply a "participant".

But this reasoning is circular. You can't assert "no writer ever referred to Babylon until after John's Revelation" and then use that to argue against any previous instance.

Okay then list all the writers, theologians, poets, philosophers after Peter but prior to John who referred to Rome as Babylon??? You won't find any even prior to Peter.

If this is Rome that Peter is talking about, then that is your earlier reference right there.

Where in the text of that letter would anyone get the remotest idea that he is in Rome? The letter is written to the Jews dispersed in Asia Minor and to those Jews of the dispersion the word "Babylon" meant only one place: Babylon on the Euphrates.

He could have gotten it from Peter

But how??? The Book of Revelation was given directly to John on Patmos circa 96 AD by revelation from Jesus directly --- not from Peter or anyone else or from previous knowledge or experience. He wrote what he saw and was told at that time. And let's see what he says in that famous Chapter 17:

"1And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters ..... And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH....and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou wonder?"

Why is he wondering??? Why does he not know that he is looking at the city of Rome personified as Mystery Babylon??? Is he dense??? Clearly even though John sees the words "BABYLON THE GREAT" on her forehead, he is still clueless as to her identity --- until the angel reveals it to him:

"I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns..... The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.... And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth."

John clearly had not associated Babylon with Rome until the angel told him here at the end of the chapter. And all writers after this never associate Rome with Babylon by citing Peter's Epistle. They do so by citing John's chapter 17, particularly this last sentence.

Okay then list all the writers, theologians, poets, philosophers after Peter but prior to John who referred to Rome as Babylon??? You won't find any even prior to Peter.

I never said that there were any. For the purpose of this discussion, I am assuming that Babylon = Rome for the first time in 1 Peter. And as for the intervening period with Revelation, just how extensive do you think the Jewish/Christian literature is from 65 to 95 A.D?

The record is much more clear in the centuries *after* John, when both the Jewish communities of the dispersion and the early Christian communities were still around. I really don't understand how you can arbitrarily impose this false stricture that we can only use materials prior to the writing of Revelations.

Your line is that I can't take their word for it because they are too far from the event. Well, by that logic, then still less can I rely on the testimony of those living *today* that assert it is Babylon proper. Because all the early sources say Peter was in Rome...Babylon comes up much much later.

But there was. There were Jews all over the Roman Empire, and a large colony in Rome. As to Peter’s mission, he was the one who converted Cornelius to Christ, guided by a vision. It seems the Lord amended Peter’s instructions.

Yes, there were Jews in Rome but they had not been preached to and knew next to nothing about Christianity. If Peter had been there he certainly missed the Jewish leaders.

Acts 28:
[16] And when we came into Rome, Paul was allowed to stay by himself, with the soldier that guarded him.
[17] After three days he called together the local leaders of the Jews; and when they had gathered, he said to them, "Brethren, though I had done nothing against the people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.[16] And when we came into Rome, Paul was allowed to stay by himself, with the soldier that guarded him.
[18] When they had examined me, they wished to set me at liberty, because there was no reason for the death penalty in my case.
[19] But when the Jews objected, I was compelled to appeal to Caesar -- though I had no charge to bring against my nation.
[20] For this reason therefore I have asked to see you and speak with you, since it is because of the hope of Israel that I am bound with this chain."
[21] And they said to him, "We have received no letters from Judea about you, and none of the brethren coming here has reported or spoken any evil about you.
[22] But we desire to hear from you what your views are; for with regard to this sect we know that everywhere it is spoken against."
[23] When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in great numbers. And he expounded the matter to them from morning till evening, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the law of Moses and from the prophets.
[24] And some were convinced by what he said, while others disbelieved.

Mmm...I don't see that. James has a very prominent role, no question. And perhaps supporting your argument is that he says "it is my judgment" in Acts 15:19...but then you see right after that it's the apostles and presbyters in union with the Church that send Paul and the letter to Antioch.

Oh I see! Democracy in action. Not one man rule. No "Pope".

Yet I wouldn't minimize Peter's influence here either. There was "much debate" (v. 7) until Peter spoke. After Peter speaks, "the whole assembly fell silent" (v. 12). Then when James gets up, the first thing he does is cite Peter (v. 14), and then says essentially the same thing that Peter did.

No doubt Peter had great influence and personal experience. You are aware aren't you the "experience" Peter was speaking of?

Yes, the assembly fell silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul.

don't want to turn this into which Apostle has more authority, but I think it's clear that they both assumed a particular leadership here, and that Peter was very much more than simply a "participant".

That's just my point. No Apostle had "authority" over the others. James led the Council because he was the presiding Bishop of Jerusalem, not because he had any particular "authority". In fact, he could have been overruled by the Apostles and Presbyters present.

Bear in mind the Apostles collectively sent Peter and John on a mission. (Acts 8:14).

all writers after this never associate Rome with Babylon by citing Peter's Epistle. They do so by citing John's chapter 17, particularly this last sentence.

Yes but these are the very same writers (Irenaeus, Tertullian) who said that Peter was in Rome. So even if they thought Babylon was the one on the Euphrates (which there is no evidence of that I'm aware of), they still put Peter in Rome, which is the point here.

Let's step back a bit. I don't necessarily have to assert that Babylon in 1 Peter is Rome. The case can stand without it, because even if Peter was in Babylon proper, he could have also gone to Rome as well. No skin off my nose. But to say that Peter was *never* in Rome, you have no choice but to take the position you are taking on the interpretation of Babylon. It is the whole entire case: there are no histories, traditions, anything of Peter being in Babylon except (if accurate) this one citation here. Whereas with me it's just a part of a larger body of evidence. Authors from the early centuries put Peter quite definitely in Rome quite apart from the mention of Babylon in the epistle.

Moreover, we see that a Christian community grew up in Rome that was quite conscious of its origins from Peter. Were the Assyrian Christians conscious of such a foundation? On the contrary, they claimed and still claim an origin from St. Thomas the Apostle, and if they mention St. Peter at all, it is always with reference to Babylon in the epistle. No stories of martyrdoms, no idea of ecclesiastical organization. Just the bare fact....and not nearly as early as we see with Rome.

BTW, I threw that bit about Johannine borrowing of Peter's epistle out there as an idea, but I think you do have a point well taken regarding the vision. So toss it out.

Yes, there were Jews in Rome but they had not been preached to and knew next to nothing about Christianity. If Peter had been there he certainly missed the Jewish leaders.

So is it out of the realm of possibility that he preached to the Gentiles there? I ask because I understood Diego1618 to say that Peter would have had "no business" preaching to Gentiles in Rome because that was Paul's mission. Diego, feel free to correct me if I'm mischaracterizing here.

So is it out of the realm of possibility that he preached to the Gentiles there?

Anything is possible but Peter's mission was to the Jews. Do you believe he'd ignore the Jewish leaders while in Rome?

Diego, feel free to correct me if I'm mischaracterizing here.

Nah! You're doin' great, Claud. Couldn't have said it better myself!

Actually you have a problem here. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and Peter the apostle to the Jews. It was paul who went to Rome. We know this from the Bible.

Actually.....you are not correct. Paul was an Apostle to the Gentiles, Their Kings "and the Israelites" (Judah and Israel) [Acts 9:15].

Peter was not only an Apostle to the Jews (Judah).....he was also an Apostle to the other 11 tribes of Israel [Matthew 10:5-6] as well.

You are correct in that Peter never went to Rome. Only Paul did that.