3.07 - THE PRIMACY OF PETER

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

I want to assure you, my friends and brethren, that I fully appreciate the effort you make to come to these noonday services. I realize that it is somewhat of a burden upon you, and especially those of you who have other responsibilities. I think it is a compliment to you, as well as to those who have the meeting directly upon their hearts, that you are so disposed, and have such regard for things sacred as to be willing even to make a sacrifice in order to come. It shows where your hearts are, where your sympathies are, and the things you want to encourage.

I have been studying with you and others, matters historic in nature, for the last two or three addresses. I do this because I want you to know the background of that great movement from humanism back to the ancient order of things. Without this as a setting, I am certain that it will be more difficult to find out what all of our efforts are about.

I want, by this series, the world to see what the Church of Christ has in mind, what it is trying to do, and what its outstanding objective is as a religious institution upon this earth. I further the talks along the line today by announcing that the subject is: The Primacy of the Apostle Peter. I have a little book written by Cardinal Gibbons. The name of it is "The Faith of Our Fathers." It is written by a Catholic of unquestioned authority and sets forth their doctrine in such a simple way that even I can understand it. The very heart and core of Catholicism is, that Peter was the first pope, and upon him the Church of God was built, and to him and his successors all authority has been given. That is the very keystone of the arch of faith in Catholic doctrine. Rob them of that one statement and you have undermined the entire foundation upon which all else, according to their statements, must depend. No Catholic can be found but that will tell you that the foundation of all of his ecclesiastical order and unique position rests upon whether or not Peter was designated by Christ as the foundation of the church. Hence I shall not today discuss any other point at all. The Catholics claim that the church must have a head. I am not disposed to question that statement. But when they say that Peter is the head of it, I am ready to draw swords and to fight it out on that line. The head of the church is Jesus Christ our Lord. Paul said of Him (Ephesians 1:22) that God "hash put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be the head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all."

Again, in Colossians 1:18 it is said, "And Christ is the head of the body which is the church."

There never has been granted to any man on earth the privilege of exercising authority over the Church of Christ. Every congregation known to the Bible is a unit within itself. The autonomy of each individual congregation is as clearly taught in the Book of God as any other one thing therein found. And there is no such thing as a blending, or forming of any kind of all alliance or relationship between one congregation and another. A cooperation is taught in the Bible. Organization other than the individual congregation is unknown to God’s Book. But our Catholic friends rely, as aforesaid, upon Peter’s being the foundation of the church. And they turn to Matthew 16:18, and read with a degree of confidence, that upon which their main hope must forever rest. That they are wrong with reference to this passage, I think there is not the shadow of a doubt, and the task is mine to examine just what is said. The occasion is that Jesus had taken the disciples from around about the shores of the sea of Galilee northward to the little quiet village of Caesarea Philippi. While there, in a period of retirement and rest, Christ elicited a confession of their faith in His identity, and Peter, with the courage and the boldness that seems to attach to his makeup, said: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." In response, Christ pronounced a blessing upon him, and then said: "I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it." The Catholics say that Christ addressed Peter and said: "Peter, thou art a rock, and upon this rock, upon thee, I will build my church." They think that the second rock refers to Peter. Now, if that be true I am ready to admit the correctness of all their claims and to accept whatever conclusions that would logically follow.

But, friends, somehow or other I can’t help but believe that the educated among the Catholics know that they misrepresent the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ in the very announcement thus made.

I do not often refer to the Greek language. I know little enough about English, much less trying to expound some other language concerning which I know even less. But there are a few words in the original tongue that I have learned. It is necessary that I speak not in English but in the very language and use the precise word as did the Lord Jesus Christ. He said:

"Thou art Petros" (Petros is a Greek word). That is the word spoken by Christ and referred to as Peter. Thou art Petros. It is a noun of masculine gender. It means a rock or a stone. Now watch. "And upon this petra," a different word, a noun of the feminine gender, "I will build my church."

Friends, did Christ say, "I am going to build my Church upon Petros" or upon "Petra" ~ Now I grant you that is a little bit technical, but it did not occur accidentally. Jesus Christ, intentionally, forbade just such a conclusion as our Catholic friends have drawn, and instead of saying "Thou art Petros, and upon this Petros I will build my Church," he said exactly the reverse. Christ never once said, I will build upon Petros (Peter), but upon this different ord "petra" I will build my church. That settles matters of that kind beyond the shadow of a doubt. Christ was particular to use a different word lest somebody might be so thoughtless as to imagine that he meant to say Peter was the foundation of the church. No such all idea was ever his. Now you ask, what is the difference in the significance of these two words, the root of which is the same? Here it is. Petros means a rock or stone, I grant you, but it has reference to a bit, a fragment, a piece, a part from the mass. Whereas the feminine form of the word means a ledge, a cliff, a mass, a foundation like unto adamant.

I stood in front of Stone Mountain down here in Georgia and saw the workman chiseling out the outline of the Confederacy. At the foot of the mountain was a large collection of the fragments, bits of stone. That would represent Petros, all individual.

Then back of these fragments, broken off, towering 1,600 feet high, and seven miles around, there is that granite cliff, ledge, or mass, which would be recognized as a feminine gender. There she stands upon a foundation immovable, with her head lifted toward the heavens, and observed by passers-by for many miles away.

Now, Christ said, "Peter, thou art a fragment, or a bit, or a piece; and upon this great ledge— upon this solid mass—I will build my church." So then it follows, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Christ said anything else than that he expected to build his church upon Peter. But there is another complete prohibition to the Catholic idea. The picture and the imagery forbid their contention. Here they are at Caesarea Philippi, a city builded upon a rock and surrounded by a rock wall in which there are gates with a keeper holding the keys. The very stability of this rock founded, rock bounded, and rock surrounded city suggested the idea of the church of our Lord. Hence he said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." Now get it. In that imagery Christ is the builder. The rock, which is the great foundation truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is the foundation, and Peter is out yonder at the gate holding the keys and admitting those who would pass in and out.

Now, here is a general proposition. It is a violation of the principles of every language, for one character to occupy two different positions in the same illustration at the same time. I repudiate therefore the idea that Peter can play a two-fold part in this scenery. He cannot be represented as the keeper of the gate with the keys in his hand, and at the same time be the foundation upon which the thing rests. But that is not all. Paul said, 1 Corinthians 3:10-11, "As a wise master builder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." Therefore, instead of the possibility of Peter’s being the foundation of the church to be built by Christ, the exact reverse is true and Peter’s position, I want to insist, in this tropical language, is not underneath the structure. He is the gatekeeper and holds the keys in his hands. The beautiful imagery is destroyed if the Catholic idea were correct.

But, friends, there are some other things that I want to mention. It cannot be proved, beyond a question of doubt, that Peter ever saw Rome. I know that there is a tradition which is referred to by some historians of the possibility of such. But it is not a definitely established fact in history that Peter ever saw Rome, much less acted as pope in the seven-hilled city.

Again, at the very time, according to Catholic contention, that Peter should have been in Rome, as the head of the church, he was in prison in Jerusalem, shut up by old Herod. It therefore follows that their contention is weighed in the balance and found wanting. The church had been in existence from the year 33 to 49 at the time of Peter’s imprisonment, but there is no record, no hint in all the Bible, or anywhere else, of Peter’s having been in Rome during the early history of the church.

Again, Peter is mentioned prominently in the Bible. We are told of his having gone to Lydda, and from Lydda the historian tells of his going to Joppa, and from Joppa the Bible says that he went to Caesarea, and you will find him at various places. Is it not peculiarly significant, because of its absence, that in all of the sacred writings and history of the church, that not one hint, not one intimation, by inspiration, is ever given that Peter ever visited the city of Rome at all. Don’t you think that such is rather peculiar?

He is mentioned in minor affairs, where there is not so great a prominence attached, and yet the very one thing that our Catholic friends need, and are called upon to furnish, is evidence, either in the Bible, or out of the Bible, conclusively, that Peter ever saw Rome, much less reigned as pope, lived and died therein. The very best thing that Cardinal Gibbons had to offer along this line is this: he said that Peter’s general epistle was written from Babylon, and that it was generally conceded that Babylon meant Rome, or confusion.

I thought while reading that, if the very foundation, if the very little end of the tap root of the doctrine depends on the Figurative meaning of the word Babylon, the Catholics are indeed as a drowning man grabbing at a straw. If that is the best that I could say for my contention, I would certainly have all embarrassing attitude in the propagation of it.

Well, there is another thing. Paul spent 16 days with Peter in Jerusalem. That is mentioned in the Bible. Paul later went to Rome and spent two years, but there is no record of his having met Peter, or having seen him. As Paul neared the city of Rome, as a prisoner, a number of Christians went down the Appian Way to meet him and to greet him and to extend to him words of comfort. They visited him while a prisoner in the city. Don’t you think that a man as prominent as was Paul, who had done so much for the cause of Christ, who had appealed his case to Caesar and had gone to the Roman city, should have been noticed by the pope? Don’t you think that the pope ought at least to have recognized him, and to have honored him, or allowed himself to be honored by the presence of the peerless Apostle of the Gentile World? Why would the pope ignore such a-great apostle?

Friends, the absence of one scintilla of history, the lack of one single bit of evidence, or of any reference, proves conclusively that the claim of our Catholic friends is untrue to the facts in the case.

What else? In the city of Rome, the prominent Jews flocked round about Paul and said: "We desire to hear of thee what thou thickest: for as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against."

What had the pope been doing in Rome? Why hadn’t he told them about the sect called Christians? Ladies and gentlemen, if the Catholic claim of Peter’s primacy and reigning as pope in Rome were true, there would be no occasion for such a demand as was made by the Jews. Surely Peter would have already told them regarding this sect. But yet again. In all of the Roman letter, which is rather lengthy, in which the greatest and the profoundest reasonings are found, and references are made, not only to the church as a whole, but to different individuals, is it not strange to you that when Paul wrote that splendid letter he did not find occasion somewhere to refer to Peter, and to recognize him as the head of the church? That letter is conspicuous by the total absence of anything that even looks like a reference made to the honor and to the dignity that Peter might have claimed as God’s representative upon the earth. In the first church conference that was ever held, a record of which is found in Acts 16:1-40, did you ever stop to note the position, relatively speaking, that Peter had to the other apostles? They met for the purpose of discussing whether or not the Gentiles ought to be circumcised. Is there anything in the Book that looks as if Peter were the pope and all of the others came in and bowed before him, and he directed and manipulated the movements of the body? It is exactly the reverse. James is the chairman; Peter is down on the floor of the conference on a parallel with Paul, Barnabas, and the others; and after there had been much disputing Peter rose up, just like any other preacher or apostle, and said, "Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe." Peter then took his seat. Paul and Barnabas next gained the attention of the chair and made a report of what God had wrought by them among the Gentiles. These are significant facts. James, as chairman, finally passed sentence that the Gentiles should not be troubled. There is not the slightest evidence that Peter ever dreamed he was a distant relative of a pope. But again, friends, when the gospel was first opened up to the Gentile world, a record of which is found in Acts tenth chapter, Cornelius, having sent for a preacher, made ready for the great meeting, and when Peter came, Cornelius ran out to meet him and fell down at his feet to worship him.

Now this is a fine time for Peter to demonstrate, "I am the pope." I wonder if he stuck out his toe and said, "Smack it." I wonder, friends, if he held out the signet ring and bade Cornelius kiss it. I wonder if he said, "Cornelius, humble yourself on bended knees as you approach my presence." Why, friends, such a thought is repulsive to those who know God’s Book. Peter said, "Cornelius, don’t bow down to me. I am no great somebody come. I am not worthy of such homage, or worship. Stand up. I myself also am a man. That is all. I am no great Holy See. I am not possessed with the power to bless and to curse. I also am a man. ’Also’ means just like you, and like common folks. I am not out of a different sort of clay made or created. Don’t worship me."

How does that look compared with the modern pope into whose August presence you have to come on bended knees, and then kiss the signet that he wears and crown him in your devotion and homage lord of all?

Friends, the demeanor of the Apostle Peter at the house of Cornelius is not even a distant relative of all intimation of that which even looks like Catholicism in nature, but it bespeaks that simplicity and that humility that should characterize gospel preachers.

Finally, let me announce to you that Christ our Lord forbade and condemned all titles and honor of all official nature. He said, Matthew 23:9, "Call no man your father upon the earth." Those who so do openly violate this plain command. But Christ not only condemned all titles, but he condemned all kinds of religious garbs, peculiar dress, or outward demonstration.

He said in that same chapter, Matthew 23:5, of the Pharisees, "They make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments." A phylactery was a piece of parchment suspended over the face on which the law was written. They wore it to testify to passers-by that they were a Godly set. Christ said they were hypocrites.

Christianity does not demand a peculiar dress. It is all right for men to wear long-tailed coats, and to that I have no objection. Besides, it is none of my business. But when any man has to wear a peculiar cut of coat or garb to designate his ecclesiastical relationships, I know that is outside the teachings of the Book of God, and for that reason I prefer the common dress of the ordinary citizen.

These are some of the reasons that render impossible my acceptance of Catholic claims, that Peter stands at the head of the church, and was the first pope unto whom there has been delegated authority both in civil and religious matters by the Lord Jesus Christ.

We have to look unto Him who is the head of the body, the beginning, the first born from the dead, that in all things He might have the preeminence. Let us know no man save Jesus Christ, and in our hearts and lives, let us seek to crown Him Lord of all. There is none other in whom there is salvation.

Once more I come to ask your acceptance of Him. Can you not this noon put your hand in his wounded palm, turn away from sin, honor Him by acknowledging Him as Lord and King, walk in the light of His commandments, trust Him for the promise, and share the bliss that passeth understanding when Life’s dream has ended? If such there be, once again the opportunity is yours.