- Dec 17, 2007
- 8,747
- 515
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
What the Bible Says
Boettner is also wrong when he claims there is no allusion to Rome in either of [Peters] epistles. There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: The Church here in Babylon, united with you by Gods election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that It is said that Peters first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.
Consider now the other New Testament citations: Another angel, a second, followed, saying, Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion (Rev. 14:8). The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath (Rev. 16:19). [A]nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earths abominations (Rev. 17:5). And he called out with a mighty voice, Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great (Rev. 18:2). [T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come (Rev. 18:10). So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence (Rev. 18:21).
These references cant be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a great city. It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the great city mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.
But there is no good reason for saying that Babylon means Rome, insists Boettner. But there is, and the good reason is persecution. The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism. (The worship of any gods other than the Roman was considered atheism.) Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capitalafter all, mail service from Rome was then even worse than it is today, and letters were routinely read by Roman officials. Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders. Why encourage a manhunt? We also know that the apostles sometimes referred to cities under symbolic names (cf. Rev. 11:8).
In any event, let us be generous and admit that it is easy for an opponent of Catholicism to think, in good faith, that Peter was never in Rome, at least if he bases his conclusion on the Bible alone. But restricting his inquiry to the Bible is something he should not do; external evidence has to be considered, too.
Early Christian Testimony
William A. Jurgens, in his three-volume set The Faith of the Early Fathers, a masterly compendium that cites at length everything from the Didache to John Damascene, includes thirty references to this question, divided, in the index, about evenly between the statements that Peter came to Rome and died there and that Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy. A few examples must suffice, but they and other early references demonstrate that there can be no question that the universaland very earlyposition (one hesitates to use the word tradition, since some people read that as legend) was that Peter certainly did end up in the capital of the Empire.
A Very Early Reference
Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like Johns [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded]. Fundamentalists admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s.
In the same book, Tertullian wrote that this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter. This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. (Note that Tertullian didnt say Peter consecrated Clement as pope, which would have been impossible since a pope doesnt consecrate his own successor; he merely ordained Clement as priest.) Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his.
In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.
Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peters successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.
Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesareas Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.
Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 5468), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.
These citations could be multiplied. (Refer to Jurgens books or to the Catholic Answers tract Peters Roman Residency.) No ancient writer claimed Peter ended his life anywhere other than in Rome. On the question of Peters whereabouts they are in agreement, and their cumulative testimony carries enormous weight.
Boettner is also wrong when he claims there is no allusion to Rome in either of [Peters] epistles. There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: The Church here in Babylon, united with you by Gods election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that It is said that Peters first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.
Consider now the other New Testament citations: Another angel, a second, followed, saying, Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion (Rev. 14:8). The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath (Rev. 16:19). [A]nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earths abominations (Rev. 17:5). And he called out with a mighty voice, Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great (Rev. 18:2). [T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come (Rev. 18:10). So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence (Rev. 18:21).
These references cant be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a great city. It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the great city mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.
But there is no good reason for saying that Babylon means Rome, insists Boettner. But there is, and the good reason is persecution. The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism. (The worship of any gods other than the Roman was considered atheism.) Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capitalafter all, mail service from Rome was then even worse than it is today, and letters were routinely read by Roman officials. Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders. Why encourage a manhunt? We also know that the apostles sometimes referred to cities under symbolic names (cf. Rev. 11:8).
In any event, let us be generous and admit that it is easy for an opponent of Catholicism to think, in good faith, that Peter was never in Rome, at least if he bases his conclusion on the Bible alone. But restricting his inquiry to the Bible is something he should not do; external evidence has to be considered, too.
Early Christian Testimony
William A. Jurgens, in his three-volume set The Faith of the Early Fathers, a masterly compendium that cites at length everything from the Didache to John Damascene, includes thirty references to this question, divided, in the index, about evenly between the statements that Peter came to Rome and died there and that Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy. A few examples must suffice, but they and other early references demonstrate that there can be no question that the universaland very earlyposition (one hesitates to use the word tradition, since some people read that as legend) was that Peter certainly did end up in the capital of the Empire.
A Very Early Reference
Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like Johns [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded]. Fundamentalists admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s.
In the same book, Tertullian wrote that this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter. This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. (Note that Tertullian didnt say Peter consecrated Clement as pope, which would have been impossible since a pope doesnt consecrate his own successor; he merely ordained Clement as priest.) Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his.
In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.
Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peters successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.
Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesareas Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.
Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 5468), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.
These citations could be multiplied. (Refer to Jurgens books or to the Catholic Answers tract Peters Roman Residency.) No ancient writer claimed Peter ended his life anywhere other than in Rome. On the question of Peters whereabouts they are in agreement, and their cumulative testimony carries enormous weight.
