1 Peter 5:13

[Reformed 78]

I had always assumed that 1 Peter was written in Rome. I was reading John Calvin on 1 Peter 5:13 and He rejected this idea as basically a Roman Catholic lie. Matthew Henry also rejected it.. Both Henry and Calvin argue for Babylon on the Euphrates.. Anyone know of others who shared or shares their view? Thanks!

 

[Reformed 78]

I found similar threads on here.. I will read them as well..

 

[Phil D.]

There are considerable arguments pro and con as to whether this particular reference indicates Babylon, Rome or Jerusalem. However, it seems worth mentioning that this is distinct from the historical issue of Peter ever having been in Rome. It is too simplistic to just dismiss the former idea (including in the context of the OP) as being a Roman Catholic lie, seeing it had widespread currency amongst some of the most notable pre-RCC ECFs (early 2nd to early 4th Century - Ignatius, Dionysius, Irenaeus, Gaius [OK, he's not that well-known], Clement, Tertullian, Eusebius, Lactantius, Cyril, et al).

 

[Contra_Mundum]

It is too simplistic to just dismiss the former idea

I think you mean "the latter idea."

Perhaps we should consider those (relatively) early witnesses, considering our distance from Peter's day. However, it is worth considering that the lack of information about the deaths of most of the Apostles prompted not a little speculative hagiography. Whenever and wherever Peter died, we know from the book of Acts and Romans that Paul undoubtedly arrived in Rome, and Peter was not there nor had he been by then.

Paul is overlooked as the Apostle who established the church in Rome. He did not begin its presence or organize its believers, but presumably established it, meaning he did what Peter and John did in Act.8:14ff, when the church came to the converts of Philip's ministry, officially recognized and enfolded them into their single organization under the apostolate, and imparted spiritual gifts to them (see Rom.1:11).

Whether or not Peter did come to Rome and was martyred there as tradition has it, the claim that HE was the founder or establisher of Rome--both as to its congregational existence and status as the principal see--is assuredly an exaggerated claim, and part of the web of claims that Rome used and uses to aggrandize itself. In Rome's argument, all must be true for any of it to be true. Jesus needed to have made Peter the "rock" to build the church on. Peter had to be the universal bishop before he even left Jerusalem. Peter has to be the first pope. Any evidence to the contrary must be discounted as impossibly contradicting the "accepted version" that leaves Rome in an unchallengeable position of supremacy.

As the first city of the political Empire, it was natural that the political claims were transferred to the church and ecclesiastical claims. History stood against Rome's original assertion of primacy, as there were numerous other, important cities in the Christian world, starting with Jerusalem. And just when Rome began to boast mightily, the secular emperor moved his capital a thousand miles to the east, away from Rome. Rome's bishop was left claiming seniority over the church in the Western Roman empire. His pretensions to seniority over the Eastern church was just that, and the Byzantines generally never accorded Rome the status she asserted.

These facts are the sort of items that are used to poke holes in Rome's self-regard. Perhaps Peter came to Rome on his own, but it was not before Paul. Perhaps he was brought there, and was martyred there. Still, he was not the "first pope," from which idea Rome starts its hegemonic boasts. As Calvin and Henry and others reason, Rome has crafted numerous falsehoods in order to protect itself from counterclaims to its vaunted authority, and scrutiny of its claims; so why grant them even this?

 

[Phil D.]

Paul is overlooked as the Apostle who established the church in Rome.

This is not the case historically. Early church writings that address the issue usually name both Paul and Peter as having had roles in “founding” the church in Rome. (Ignatius - “…not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]…” Dionysus - “…the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome…” Irenaeus - “…[That] ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul…” Tertullian - “…the nearby Romans…to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the gospel and even sealed it with their blood…” etc.)

Rome has crafted numerous falsehoods in order to protect itself from counterclaims to its vaunted authority, and scrutiny of its claims; so why grant them even this?

Personally, I don’t believe trying to overthrow, downplay or ignore such a historical consensus because it conflicts or grates against one’s theological proclivities is a wise course of action. I see this approach taken quite often in other matters of debate as well... The testimony amongst early church writers on this particular matter was united and well-advertised, both by Eastern and Western sources, orthodox and gnostic, with no alternatives or objections having been lodged. The oppositely prejudiced idea that Peter had ecclesial primacy (other than in the form of honor) and either de jure or de facto popehood is very effectively refutable on the basis of its own lack of merit. This includes testimony from some of the same early church writers that were nonetheless certain Peter did eventually reside in, helped “found” the church, and was martyred in Rome.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

This is not the case historically. Early church writings that address the issue usually name both Paul and Peter as having had roles in “founding” the church in Rome. (Ignatius - “…not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]…” Dionysus - “…the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome…” Irenaeus - “…[That] ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul…” Tertullian - “…the nearby Romans…to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the gospel and even sealed it with their blood…” etc.)

I'm focused on the biblical data, which points exclusively to Paul as the apostle that was in Rome closest in time to when the church there became technically established. If Peter arrived there later on, then in spite of arguments in support of giving him shared "credit" (as if he desired it) in fact he built on another man's foundation. Effort to burnish his contribution seem contrived and misguided; but they are just the sort of convenient testimony for bolstering the subsequent claims the Roman see made promoting a centralized, bureaucratic ecclesiastic empire--just the institution Jesus had in mind, I'm sure.

Still, I have nothing to lose by granting both men the honor, one from the Scriptures, one from history. At least those ancient writers remember Paul. But since when does the Roman see promote the idea that Paul should have the first part of that honor? Every one of the four quotes above sets Peter in front of Paul; yet Acts knows nothing of him in Rome while it does know Paul. The Roman see overweighs Peter's presence in Rome, and this leads her to devalue Paul; besides she ignores him when he contradicts her errors--very unlike when he contradicted Peter to his face. I think, if she could get away with making Paul a footnote (or less) to Peter, he'd be even more overlooked than he is.

The Eastern churches and the western Protestants have nothing of substance riding on Peter's presence (or not) in Rome, to found the church there or in his martyrdom, other than each party must subsequently bear with the Roman see's obnoxious aggrandizement from the ideas. Let them celebrate the tradition, but having become an idol: better if it was fiction.

 

[Phil D.]

I'm focused on the biblical data, which points exclusively to Paul as the apostle that was in Rome closest in time to when the church there became technically established. If Peter arrived there later on, then in spite of arguments in support of giving him shared "credit" (as if he desired it) in fact he built on another man's foundation. Effort to burnish his contribution seem contrived and misguided; but they are just the sort of convenient testimony for bolstering the subsequent claims the Roman see made promoting a centralized, bureaucratic ecclesiastic empire--just the institution Jesus had in mind, I'm sure.

Still, I have nothing to lose by granting both men the honor, one from the Scriptures, one from history. At least those ancient writers remember Paul. But since when does the Roman see promote the idea that Paul should have the first part of that honor? Every one of the four quotes above sets Peter in front of Paul; yet Acts knows nothing of him in Rome while it does know Paul. The Roman see overweighs Peter's presence in Rome, and this leads her to devalue Paul; besides she ignores him when he contradicts her errors--very unlike when he contradicted Peter to his face. I think, if she could get away with making Paul a footnote (or less) to Peter, he'd be even more overlooked than he is.

The Eastern churches and the western Protestants have nothing of substance riding on Peter's presence (or not) in Rome, to found the church there or in his martyrdom, other than each party must subsequently bear with the Roman see's obnoxious aggrandizement from the ideas. Let them celebrate the tradition, but having become an idol: better if it was fiction.

I don't necessary disagree with anything you've said here. At the same time I don't think Protestant apologists have generally handled this matter particularly well, in the sense that they typically refuse to acknowledge a historical likelihood, at least insofar as the available data consistently indicates. Not seeing anything in scripture that prevents or really discourages the testimony of the early church concerning the geographical aspect of the subject, I think it best to grant even an adversary what is apparently true. Truth doesn't need the aid of obfuscation or the privation of probability in order to prevail. Falsehoods derived from twisting and perverting an apparent truth, such as the RCC does in this affair, can be dealt with and defeated on other, more direct grounds. Otherwise one risks coming across to an opponent as either being blind or disingenuous, and in so doing cede the high ground of credibility, and squander the initiative to persuade. I have seen it happen. I have had it happen to me.