peter
and Christ
peter
and Christ
Peter is a central figure in the Gospels, second only to Christ. The events of his life are well-known, but a closer look reveals characteristics of Peter which are building blocks in his relationship to Christ.
Last chapter we looked at Peter’s leadership among the disciples.
This chapter focuses on the words Christ spoke to Peter, words which the Catholic Church claims made Peter the first Pope. We will also take a brief look at the historical forces which led to the primacy of the Roman papacy. We will also take a few, brief looks at why the Lutheran Church has made some bold claims about the Roman papacy.
The Roman emperor, Constantine the Great, who had legalized Christianity in 312, moved the seat of government from Rome to Constantinople. Roman civic life as well as its power, declined greatly. There were, however, no cities in the western Roman empire that could rival the tattered glory of Rome.
The early Christian Church had been wracked by wave after wave of false teaching. Most of these false teachings had originated in the eastern part of the Roman empire and were settled by various councils, some of which have formulated creedal statements we use today to confess the truths all Christians hold dear (Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed).
Rome and the Western Church remained largely untouched by these heresies and had the good fortune, with the emperor so far away, to objectively size up these doctrinal battles from afar. Rome usually safely landed on the right side of the religious dispute while those struggling for the orthodox faith in the east often found themselves exiled or executed by imperial power meddling in religious affairs.
As Antioch and Ephesus had done, Rome at an early date sent out missionaries throughout western Europe. The churches that formed naturally looked to Rome for guidance and authentication. As time went on, Rome was only too happy to supply both—and then some, as what had once been a secular empire under the Caesars, became a sacred empire under the bishop of Rome, the Pope.
Almost as soon as the emperor was at a distance, the bishop at Rome began to make claims for himself. As the Roman empire in the west fell, the organized western church under the auspices of the bishop at Rome was the only cohesive group left. So great was the power of Leo I that he allegedly talked Attila the Hun out of sacking Rome in the fifth century. The Pope had become not only the leader of the Western Church, but a secular leader taking the place of the fallen Caesars.
341 Julius, Bishop of Rome, to the council at Antioch
The case of the orthodox bishops Athanasius and Marcellus were being reviewed as to whether to restore them to their positions
Dearly beloved, the judgments of the Church are no longer according to the Gospel, but tend only to banishment and death. Now suppose, as you allege, that there was some guilt attached to these men, the trial ought to have been conducted according to the Canon of the Church and not in this manner. Letters ought to have been written to us all, that in this way all might contribute to a just decision.1 For the men in question were bishops, and the churches concerned were no ordinary churches, but those which the Apostles themselves had governed in person. 2
And why were we not written to about the church of Alexandria in particular? Do you not realize that it has been the custom for word to be sent to us first, that in this way must decisions may be arrived at from this place? If therefore any suspicion was directed against the bishop there, word ought to have been sent to the bishop of this place. 3 But they neglected to inform us, and proceeded at their own pleasure and on their own authority; and now they wish to obtain our approval of their decisions, though we never condemned Athanasius4. This is not in accordance with the constitutions of Paul or the directions of the traditions of the Fathers. I am informing you of the tradition handed down from the blessed Apostle Peter.
Julius makes some interesting (and questionable) points.
What is his initial gripe (1)? Is it valid? Why or why not?
The gathering at Antioch did not let all the other churches know what they were doing. This is a valid point, for the position of a bishop and the extent of the doctrinal controversy made it everyone’s business.
What does Julius insinuate about certain churches (2)? Is this valid? Why or why not?
Only those churches which had apostolic leaders are more than ordinary churches. This is not a valid statement, for there are churches today which don’t even exist, though they were founded by apostles! It is not the man at the head of the church which gives it standing, but the Word which it confesses.
How does Julius twist the first point he made (3)? What does he base his argument on?
Julius moves from griping about all the churches being let in on the council to making sure that Rome is notified first so that decisions may be arrived at in Rome first! It is unclear whether Julius is talking about whether Rome can make a decision for its own legation or whether Rome is to make the decision for the other churches He bases his argument on tradition and custom.
What is Julius’ final gripe (4) and what does this show about the mind-set of the Christian church in the fourth century?
The local churches around Antioch have taken matters into their own hands and made a decision. Now they simply want Rome to rubber-stamp it. While it shows the local bishops felt they had a free hand to do what they wanted, they also felt the need to have influential Rome on their side.
343 Council of Sardica
Again, it must be provided, that if, in any province, any bishop have a case against his brother and fellow-bishop neither of them shall call in bishops from another province as arbitrators. But if any bishop have had his case judged and considers that he has sound and good cause for a re-trial of the case, then, if you are so good as to agree, let us honor the memory of the Apostle Peter and provide that letters be sent to Julius, Bishop of Rome, by those who tried the case, so that, if need be, the trial may be renewed by means of the neighboring bishops, and let him appoint arbitrators. But if he is unable to agree that the matter is in need of re-trial, then the first decision shall hold good.
What is the Council of Sardica agreeing to?
The Bishop of Rome will hear appeals in matters pertaining to bishops.
What are they not agreeing to?
The Bishop of Rome will not be the first court to hear all matters pertaining to conflicts between bishops.
How are they using the Bishop of Rome—can you make a comparison to the government of the United States?
They are using the Bishop of Rome only as an appeals court. It is kind of like our Supreme Court.
Does this imply anything about the primacy of the Bishop of Rome?
No. Just as the Supreme Court is not above the executive and legislative branches of government, so the Bishop of Rome is not above the other bishops.
401, Innocent I, Bishop of Rome, to the African bishops
The African bishops had condemned the teachings of Pelagius (man is saved by works) and had appealed to Innocent I to support their decision
We approve your action in following the principle of the Fathers1 that nothing which was done even in the most remote and distant provinces should be taken as finally settled unless it came to the notice of this See2, that any just pronouncement might be confirmed by all the authority of this See, and that the other churches from thence gather what they should teach. 3
What is Innocent basing his argument on (1)?
Again, we see the Roman argument based on custom or tradition, “the principle of the Fathers.”
How does Innocent I expand the argument of Julius (2)?
Matters within a bishopric are also to come to Rome for appeals. One could also read into it that everything must come to Rome.
What is Innocent I implying about the validity of church teaching in other bishoprics (3)?
Their teaching is only valid if they can “gather from Rome” what they teach.
Is he right or wrong?
The validity of a church’s teaching is its adherence to the truth of the Bible. I cannot say the teachings of the Methodist Church are correct because they are Methodist, or the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are correct because the Pope says so. I can only say they are correct if they totally agree with the Word.
Interestingly enough, in 424, another Bishop of Rome, Coelestius, said Pelagius and his side-kick Apiarius were orthodox and reinstated them, although they had been excommunicated by the African Church. An excerpt from the African bishops’ response:
Your delegate violently opposed the whole synod, greatly insulting us on the pretext of asserting the privileges of the Roman church, demanding the restoration of Apiarius to communion on the ground that your Holiness had restored him. Therefore, with all respect, we earnestly entreat you for the future not to be ready to admit to a hearing persons that come from this region, nor to be willing to receive into communion those that have been excommunicated by us.
When would the African bishops accept the decision of the Bishop of Rome?
When it agreed with their decision.
When would the African bishops not accept the decision of the Bishop of Rome?
When it didn’t agree with their decision.
What had primacy in the western Church in 424?
Rome said it did, but evidently the African churches held that the Word had primacy, for that is the grounds on which they excommunicated Pelagius and Apiarius, for false teaching.
People consider Leo I the first Pope (440-461). He sided with the victorious (and correct) party at the Council of Chalcedon, to which the delighted council declared, “Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo.” In subsequent proceedings they held Rome up as one of several patriarchal churches, included New Rome (Constantinople) among the number. Many have seen this as an action by the Eastern churches to stem the growing influence and power of Constantinople. Leo wasn’t pleased by this (it was dropped from the canonical record at Rome) and, in turn, they weren’t delighted by one of his other claims.
The Church at Rome has always held primacy.
Is he right?
No. As early as 424 it is evident Rome didn’t even have supremacy in the West, in Africa. Rome had always asserted (for the last 100 years) it had primacy, but that’s a different matter.
Matters had progressed a bit by 600 with the claims of Gregory I, Bishop of Rome.
To all who know the Gospel it is obvious that by the voice of the Lord the care of the entire church was committed to the holy apostle and prince of all the apostles, Peter. 1 “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” Behold, he received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power to bind and loose was given to him, and the care and principality of the entire church was committed to him. 2 Am I defending my own cause in this matter? Is it not rather the cause of the Almighty God, the cause of the universal church? And we certainly know that many priests of the church of Constantinople have fallen into the whirlpool of heresy. 3 Certainly, in honor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, the title ‘universal’ was offered to the Roman pontiff by the venerable Council of Chalcedon.”
How does Gregory I show that Peter has primacy over all the other apostles (1)?
Jesus gave Peter primacy with the words of Matthew 15.
What does this imply about Peter’s church? Is that valid or not? Why?
Peter’s church has primacy over all the other apostolic churches. This is not valid, for a number of reasons. Peter exercised leadership at Jerusalem and Antioch (and maybe Alexandria). Those churches, on this basis, could claim primacy also—they never did! Primacy in the church is often based on service, not right. And history can remove apostolic churches.
What is the basis of Gregory’s argument for Peter’s primacy (2)?
The words of Matthew 15.
What is Gregory’s assessment of the only other church power that could rival Rome’s authority (3)?
Constantine is riddled with heresy.
So, according to Gregory, to whom should the entire Christian church listen to?
Rome.
By 1053 the Church at Rome and the Church at Constantinople had excommunicated each other, causing the Great Schism, which has resulted in the Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic church.
We can cut to the chase, some 700 years later. It is the height of the Medieval Roman Catholic Church. Pope Boniface issues a papal bull, Unam Sanctam, 1302.
We are obliged by the faith to believe and hold that there is one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and that outside this Church there is neither salvation nor remission of sins. In which Church there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. At the time of the flood there was one ark of Noah, symbolizing the one Church; this was completed in one cut and had one, namely Noah, as helmsman and captain; outside which all things on earth, we read, were destroyed. Of this one and only church there is one body and one head—not two heads, like a monster—namely Christ, and Christ’s vicar is Peter, and Peter’s successor.
What if I don’t believe the Christian Church on earth is the Roman Catholic Church?
I don’t have salvation or remission of sins.
What if I don’t believe the Pope is the head of the Christian Church on earth?
I don’t have salvation or remission of sins.
Read Matthew 16.16-19
What did Peter confess about Christ?
Peter will be the rock of the apostles, their leader.
Who revealed that to Peter?
God the Father.
Jesus said to Peter, “You are petros (petros) and upon this petra (petra) I will build my church.
What does petros mean? The only time petros is used in the New Testament, it is as the given name of Peter. But petros was a real Greek word.
In Homer’s Iliad, as Hector is fighting Patroclus, Patroclus leaps to the ground and grasps within one hand a jagged, shiny petros and throws it, killing Hector’s chariot driver, Cebriones (Il. 16.730 ff).
Euripides in his play, the Heraclidae, gives us the proverb: Leave no stone (petros) unturned.
What does petros mean?
It is a stone, big enough to kill a man, big enough to have something obscured by it, but small enough to throw, holding it with one hand.
With petra, we’ve got an easier road of it. It occurs numerous times in the New Testament and it’s meaning can be easily discovered.
Consider these passages:
Mat 7.24 Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock (petra).
1 Cor 10.4 They all drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock (petra) that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ (referring to Moses striking the rock and bringing forth water, Exodus 17.1-7).
Rev 6.16 They called to the mountains and the rocks (petra), “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!
What does petra mean?
It is a foundation stone, a cliff, a huge rock that is big enough to be a monument, like Ayer’s Rock in Australia or the Rock of Gilbraltar. Only something that big would be equated with mountains and big enough to hide unbelievers from God’s judgment on the Last Day.
Could you possibly get the two, petros and petra, confused?
No. It is a stretch, or it is a deliberate attempt to confuse a pebble and a cliff.
Could you put Jesus’ words, “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” into your own words?
You are a chip off the old block and on that block, the confession of me as God and Savior, I will build my church.
What is the Church built upon, a man or a confession?
It is built upon a confession.
Aren’t we Lutherans built on Martin Luther?
No, we are built on the Bible truths which Luther brought back to public light. He didn’t even want people to call themselves Lutherans.
What does hold primacy in the Church?
The confession of Christ as God and Savior, the confession Peter made.
People have often misinterpreted Jesus’ words to Peter. The church is built on a rock that is surrounded by dangers. Here’s a typical picture.
Look at Jesus’ next words to Peter. “The gates of Hades will not overcome it.”
What is the “it”?
The Church.
What is Hades?
Hell.
Where do you find gates and how mobile are they?
Gates are in the entryway to ancient cities. They are to be immobile.
Do gates lead an attack?
Gates suffer the injury of an attack. If they are strong enough they stand up to, prevail, or turn back, overcome, a siege or an attack.
Who is attacking whom in the picture?
The forces of evil are attacking the poor little Church.
Who is attacking whom in Jesus’ words?
The Church is cleaning the devil’s clock.
Can you put this in your own words?
Every time someone comes to faith by hearing the confession of Jesus as God and Savior, the devil suffers a defeat. This will happen again and again and again.
See what a church’s evangelism program would look like if it were based upon the misinterpretation or the reality of Jesus’ words. Put a check under the picture it most lines up with.
Which picture best describes our church and why?
|
|
|
|
|
We’ve got to get out and reach everybody! |
|
x |
|
Our doors are always open. |
X |
|
|
You have to be careful about who you let into church—they might have a lot of wrong ideas |
X |
|
|
We don’t want to spoil the flavor of our congregation |
X |
|
|
We want every group to be open to newcomers |
|
x |
|
Worship times are convenient for members |
X |
|
|
Worship times are convenient for visitors |
|
x |
|
Bible class is easy to fit in |
|
x |
|
If you want to become a member, ask the pastor about how to become one |
X |
|
|
A new Adult Information Class is started—it’s open for all! |
|
x |
|
Our budget is tight—we have to cut back on missions |
X |
|
|
Our bills are getting paid—why should I give more to the church? |
X |
|
|
We’ve had one pastor for years and things are going just fine—why get another one? |
X |
|
|
Shouldn’t we tell the pastor what we’re doing, just to keep him from being in the dark? |
|
x |
|
Swwwweeellllllll—if the synod OKs another mission for this town it will cost them another $2 million |
X |
|
|
The town is barely large enough for our congregation to make a go of it—why are you trying to steal our members with another mission opening? |
X |
|
|
We’ll need a pastor to help us run that program. |
X |
|
|
Let’s advertise in the paper and see what happens |
|
x |
|
|
X |
|
We’ve talked about the “keys” Christ gave to Peter before, but let’s take one last look at them.
Christ said the same thing on Easter Sunday evening. “On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven (John 20.19, 23).”
What are the keys?
The power to forgive or not forgive sins.
Who is Christ giving the keys to? Read John 20.19, 23 out loud and make Christ sound like a Texan.
Jesus gave the power to forgive sins to all his people on earth. “If y’all forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if y’all do not forgive them, they are not forgiven (John 20.19, 23).”
How will this strike down the gates of hell?
When a person believes they are forgiven, they are a believer, no longer under the power of the devil.
Are the Pope’s claims about Peter being made the foundation of the Church true?
No. It is the confession of Christ which is the foundation of the Church.
Is Peter the first Pope in the way that the Roman Catholic Church thinks?
No.
Sad Experience
Nobody knows the Roman Catholic Church like the Lutheran Church. We were the first ones successfully kicked out of it!
Briefly explain these Roman Catholic teachings of the Pope.
Priestly celibacy
Priests cannot get married—he’s married to the Church.
Make a full confession of sins
You have to confess all the sins you have committed since your last confession.
Penance
You must perform religious deeds before you are forgiven.
Indulgences
You can purchase forgiveness of sins.
Prayer to the Saints
You can pray to the saints for help and guidance.
Faith and works
You are saved by believing and being good.
Non-approved religious books illegal to read
Unless a religious book has been approved by the Roman Catholic Church and bears its imprimatur, it is sinful to read
Purgatory
The souls of believers who have not completed their penance will complete their penance in the hellish fires of purgatory.
Baptism does not forgive all sins.
Baptism removes Original Sin only
A person can still strive to be godly and be saved.
Original Sin a detriment to the human nature
Sin to eat meat on Good Friday
Only if you are very young, very old or very sick can you eat meat on Good Friday and other days of obligation.
Can only confess sins to a priest.
No confession is valid unless it is made to a priest who can assign penance.
Can only be married by a priest.
The sacrament of marriage can only be performed by a priest.
Check which of the above are contrary to Scripture.
They all should be checked.
Why do Roman Catholics believe all these things?
How can we in our lives, be more like Peter and less like Benedict?
Thanks for your time spent on this Bible Study!
