Full Text for The Last Twenty-Five Years of Peter's Life (Text)

. . (t!nurnr~iu IDqtnlngirul 4nut41y Continuing Lehre und Wehre (Vol. LXXVI) Magazin fuer Ev.-Luth. Homiletik (Vol. LIV) Theol. Quarterly (1897-1920) -Theol. Monthly (Vol. X) Vol. II February, 1931 No.2 CONTENTS PIEPER, F.: Dr. Friedrich Bente ........................ . MUELLER, J. T.: Atheistic Propaganda in Our Country KRETZMANN, P. E.: Das Schicksal der letzten Koenige Judas .................................................. . KRETZMANN, P. E.: The Last Twenty-five Years of Page 81 87 95 Peter's Life ............................................ 105 LAETSCH, TH.: Sermon Study on 1 Cor. 1, 21-31.. . . . .. 115 Dispositionen ueber die von der Synodalkonferenz ange- nommene Serie alttestamentlicher Texte............... 124 Theological Observer. - Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches ...... 131 Book Review. - Literatur .................................. 151 Ein Prediger muss nicht allein weiden, also dass er die Schafe unterweise, wie sie rechte Christen 80llen sein, 80ndem auch daneben den Woelfen wehr(J1l, dass sie die Schafe nicht angreilen und mit falscher Lehre verfuehren und Irrtum ein· fuehren. - Luther. Es ist kein Ding, das die Leute mehr bei der Kirche behaelt denn die gute Predigt. - Apologie, Art. 24. If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle Y 1 Cor. 4,8. Published for the Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States CONCORDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE, St. Louis, Mo . II The Last Twenty-Five Years of Peter's Life. 105 )8cfennttli~ untergarten unb lid) igte ~n:tihner borljarten laWen l11oUten. Wlier batan benft man nid)t. Wid)t dnma! Die gemeinfame ®runbTage, baf3 man bie 6cfjt:if± a[£l ®otte£l !illod anedennt, 1llate bodjanben. SDe~fJa!li liebeute± bet !illeHfonbent nid)t~ anbere~ unb 1llitb nid)t£! anbete~ 6ebeuten ar~ fUnbHd)en Unioni~mu~. !illir veten: ~@jtt, etbatme bid) bet .Bente auf @jtben aud) in biefer re~ten :Scit unb gib bdnen ~ned)ten ®nabe, ttO~ ifJrer taufenb" fa!±igen ltn1llihbigleit bein teine£! !illod in SDemu± nnb mit fYeitigfeit 1lleiter au fJeaeugen I !illit beten abet aud): ,,~d) ®ott, c~ gefjt gat iibel au, aUf bicier @jtb' ift feine vtufJ'. 1/ .Baf3 bod) beinen Iieben ~iingften stag balb fommcn 1 jffi. :6 f d). 4 • ~ The Last Twenty-Five Years of Peter's Life. The reaSQn for putting the tQpic in this fQrm is Dbvious. It refers, as a matter Qf cDurse, to the years 42--67 A. D., during which, accDrding to belief in RDman OathDlic cireles, Peter, the "Prince Df the ApDstles," was bishDp of the congregation at Rome and inciden- tally the first Pope. The situatiQn with regard tQ the Romish claims is well set forth by Shotwell (in ShDtwell and Loomis, The 8ee of Pete?') XXIII) as fDllQWs: "With reference tQ the Petrine doc- trine ..• the Oatholic attitude is much mDre than a 'predisposition tD believe.' That doctrine is the fundamental basis Qf the whol(~ papal structure. It may be summed up in three main claims. They are: first, that Peter was appointed by Ohrist to be His chief represen- tative and successor and the head Qf His OhUl'ch; second, that Peter went tQ RDme and fQunded the bishDpric there; third, that his suc- ceSSDrs succeeded to his prerogatives and tQ all the authority implied thereby. In dealing with these claims, we are passing along the bDrder-line between histDry and dogmatic theQlDgy. The primacy of Peter and his appDintment by Ohrist tD succeed Him as head of the ,/ Church are accepted by the OathQlic Ohurch as the indubitable wQrd Df the inspired Gospel in its only possible meaning. That Peter went tD Rome and fDunded there his sec is just as definitely what is termed in OathDlic theDlDgy a dDgmatic fact. This has been defined by an (3minent OathQlic theDlogian as 'histOl'ical fact SQ intimately CQn- ynected with SDme great OathQlic truths that it would be believed even if time and accident had destroyed an the Driginal evidence therefDr.' In this sense [so ShQtweJl cDntinues] it may be said that OathQlics accept the presence Df Peter at Rome, on faith. But they assert at the same time that faith is really not called UPQn, since the evidence satisfactDrily establishes the event as an histDrical fact." 1) 1) According to the recent book by Gilbert Bagnani, Rome and the Pa.pacy, the dogma of the Papacy is a belief resting on the authority of the Church, independently of historical evidence. 106 Tho Last Twenty-Five Years of Peter's Life. Let us pause here to remark: ,It is evident from the paragraph just quoted that the author holds no brief for the traditional view, that he has no sympathy for its origin and later ramifications, but that his interest, on the contrary, is that of an objective searcher for the truth, so far as it may be ascertained. His paragraph, on the whole, g'ives the status quo of the Oatholic position as such, even if individual Oatholic historians have discredited the papal claims on a historical basis, The questions which concern us in this short study are these: What do we know about the last twenty-five yea1's of Peter's life? Was Peter ever bishop of the Roman congregation ~ May we concede that he visited Rome 01' was brought there ·at any time between 42 and 61? What about his alleged martyrdom in Rome? Let us state at once that we are not here concerned with the doctrinal proofs against the primacy of Peter; we are merely interested in :finding whether there is some nucleus of truth in the infOl'mation which is commonly dispensed, A peculiar feature of the situation is the rather vehement attempt on the part of Protestant writers to disprove the Romish claims in toto. Luther's interest in objecting to the claims of Rome was to show the utter insufficiency of their alleged proof for the primacy of Peter. This was also the main point in the attempts of later Lutheran writers, But since Baur of Tuebingen presented his chief objections to the traditional Romish view about Peter's residence in Rome, his arguments have been repeated in various forms to this day, undoubt- edly in good faith, But no one will deny the dangcr connected with a procedure which seems to begin with a thesis and, consciously or unconsciously, l)resents only such material as supports the contention of the thesis. After all, -it is not necessary to state that Pete7' neVe7' was in Rome if OU1' pm'pose is merely to show that the claims 1'eg~1'd­ ing his episcopacy and p1'imacy a1'e unfottnded. Let us take up the Petrine tradition as it.is summarized chiefly by Shotwell and Loomis, since these two authors have gathered all the evidence extant in primary and secondary sources. In the so- called First Epistle to the Oorinthians, ascribed to Olement of Rome and certainly to be dated before the end of the :first century, we have the following passage (chap, 5; Loeb, The Aposlolic Fathe1's, I, 16-18): "There was Peter, who by reason of unrighteous envy en- dured not one or two, but many trials, and so, having borne his testimony, he passed to his appointed place of glory. Amid envy and strife, Paul pointed out the way to the prize of patient endurance. Aft61' he had been seven times in bonds, been driven into exile, been stoned, been' a herald in the East and the West, he won noble re- nown for his faith, for he taught right{lOUSness unto the whole world and reached the farthest bounds of the West and bore his testi- The Last Twenty-Five Years of Peter's Life. 107 mony before the rulers; thus he departed from the world and passed "unto the Holy Place, havjng set an illustrious pattern of patient endurance." It has been stated: ~.i'you have thus by this admonition bound together the planting's of ~' .. feter and Paul at Rome and at Oorinth; fOl' they both alike planted :tJi'in our Corinth and taught us, and both alike taught together in Italy '>*"hnd suffered martyrdom at the same time" (quoted by Eusebius, Hist. (,J!Jcel., II, 25), and that Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, ~nd others accepted the statement of Peter's having been in Rome. F So strong is the nucleus of evidence in tho traditional account ~'that Shotwell (l. c., XXIII, 74) is constrained to remark: "Since, in v ";the nature of things, a tradition is never contemporary evidenee, the ;";:9.etermination of its value must depend upon V81'ification through :";other sources. Undoubtedly the tendency to reject tradition went too " l"" 2) There is no reference to Peter in either Ephesians or Trnllians, in #.~he, version of the Ignatian letters as now accepted. But it is interesting 'c,,~o note that the longer version, which cannot be much later than the first ,:.iquarter of the second century, has, in the Epistle to the TmlUwn-s, :''':';!lhap. VII, a passage stating that Anencletus and Linus acted as deacons .. to Peter. (See Apost. Fathers, ed. by Coxe, I, 69.) 108 The Last Twenty-Five Years of Peter's Life. fa?' in the nineteenth centu1·Y. It is now generally agreed that tradi- tion, while losing 01' distorting the details, very commonly embodies some historical elements. . .. It seems to show that at the opening of the second century Peter was connected with the community at Rome in the minds of prominent Christians of Asia Minor." No matter, then, whether later writers were clearly not justified in making the most of indefinite traditional accounts in the interest of estab- lishing the Petrine episcopacy and primacy, we may not go to the opposite extreme in using the argument from silence, since this must yield in even this domain. It is more than likely that there was no need for stressing the connection of Peter with Rome, since this was generally accepted as a fact. Other extraneous material which cannot be ig'nored is that found in apocryphal writings of the second, third, and fourth centuries. The embellishments of the stories may indeed be inventions, often strongly permeated with superstition, but there is almost invariably a nucleus of truth which can be discerned without difficulty, especially if the various apocryphal wI·itings originated in widely separated communities. There are the Actus Pet1';' cunt Simone (ca. 180-220), in which the alleged conflict between the Apostle Peter and Simon Magus is pictured, containing also the Domine, quo vadis? episode; the Didascalia Apostolm'um (third century), not to ·be confused with the Didache ton Dodeka of tlle beginning of the second century, in which Peter is himself represented as giving a report on the heresy of Simon in Rome; the pseudo-Clement Letter to James (third cen- tury), in which there is a reference to Peter's coming to Rome and the last incidents of his life; the Recognitiones, ascribed to Clement (third century), in which the coming of Peter to Rome forms a large part of the story; the 1Y[ a1·tY1·i1tm Sanctorum Apostol01'um Petri et Pauli (fourth century), which gives a long account of the alleged trial and death of the two apostles; and the Acta Petri et Pauli (fourth century), which shows many strange accretions, indicating a great distance from the source. But the nucleus of all these stories is the same and may therefore, according to the psychology of traditions, be accepted as essentially true, namely, that both Peter and Paul were in Rome toward the end of their lives and that they suffered martyr- dom in the capital of the Roman Empire.S) And yet another field of extraneous material must be touched upon, namely, that of Christian archeology, particularly that of nu- mismatics and epigraphy. Here gilded glasses and bronze busts of the Apostles Paul and Peter are especially interesting, since some of them are of acknowledged antiquity. Concerning these even Bennett 3) For further references and discussions in this field see Shotwell and Loomis, t. c., 135, note; also James, The Apocryphal New Testament. The Last Twenty-Five Years of Peter's Life, 109 (O]wistian A 1'cheology, 113 f,) concedes that some of them may go .back to the third century, But Oobern (New A1'cheologicaZ Dis- covln'ies, 520), who has followed the work of the recent Italian arche- ologists with every indication of objective scholarship, writes: "An- othor even more certain ancient relic commemorating the two great apostles are the gilded glasses, dating from the second half of the second and the beginning of the third century, on many of which pictures of Peter and Paul arc executed on the flat bottom in gold leaf, Out of 340 of these glasses published by Garucci these pictures are found on eighty. They also contained such mottoes as, 'Mayest thou live long 1'; 'A mark of friendship'; 'Life and happiness to thee and thine.' These wore evidently g'ifts for festival occasions, and Mal'ucChi believes, since there is a uniformity of type in the pictures, that they have originated from real portrait pictmes." 4) Cobern and Bennett write from the Protestant viewpoint, but it is significant that Kaufmann (Olwistliche A 1'chaeologie, 388), writing from the Roman Catholic viewpoint, makes his statement in the same objective fashion: aH e1'vo1'ragende Beispiele diese?' A1't ve1'danlcen wi?' der plast·ischen Kunst, welche unz·weifelhaft einen neuen Anstosz :ZU1' Poriraetie1'ung Pet'/'i und Pauli gegeoen hat. Es wi1'd zufaellig sein, wenn im 1'oemischen Denkmaele1"lnate1'ial Pei1'US ZUC1'st auf den Ihesken 81'scheint, , ,. Die Siche1'heit, mit welcher deT t1'aditionelle TVpus auftTitt und aIle Schwankungen uebM'windet, welche sich aus dem Ve1'lasse1L des I dealbildes uncl de?' A ufnahme des 1'ealen e1'geoen, laeszt irn Ve?'ein mit den zeitgenoessischen Utera1'ischen H inweisen auf Apostelpo1'traets lceinen Zweifel, dasz e1' an authentische Vorlagen ,.anlcnuep/t, mUhin sich vom apostolischen Zeitalte?' hemu! vel'e1'bte. An dM' Spitze cle?' e·inschlaegigen Denkmaele1' steht de?' . , . B1'onze- aiskus, clessen technische Behandlunu eine1' Datierung ins ZeitalteT dm' Antonine, wie sie de Rossi ansetztJ nicht widersp1'icht," That '?'would place the disk shortly after the middle of the second century. was found in the catacombs of St. Agnes, In evaluating this and similar evidence, one is inclined to agree with the (Protestant) his- Foakes-J ackson, who, in referring to this and other epigraph- evidence, especially from the catacombs, makes the statement: "One is prepared to accept as final the statement: 'For the arche- the presence and execution of SS. Peter and Paul in Rome are . 4) Illustrations of such gilded glasses are given by Bennett on Plate I, and. his remark in that connection is most interesting: "With the excep- of a very few of late origin there is in these gilded glasses 110 intima- of any preeminence of Peter oyer Paul. In some instances where these are associated with Christ on the same glass, Paul had the place honor; in others Peter is at the right hand of Christ, thus showing the primacy of either would not once be suggested by the pictorial rqpresentations." 110 The Last Twenty-Five Years of Peter's Life. facts established beyond a shadow of doubt by purely monumental evidence.'" (Peter, Prince of the Apostles, 162.) But what about this cumulative evidence in the face o£ the alleged silence o£ Scriptures or the reference to "Babylon" as a clue to the residence of Peter in the last years of his life ~ Is the New Testament really dead against Peter's being in Rome at any time? Let us examine the positive evidence, especially that from Scripture, We know, of course, that Peter was in Jerusalem in the year 30 A. D., the year o£ the formal organization o£ the Christian Church on the great day of Pentecost. He was there £01' some time, according to Acts 3-8, £01' at least a year and a haH or two years, 01' till after the murder of Stephen, He was there in the yem.' 35/6; for Saul visited him three years after his conv81'sion, alter his sojourn in Arabia, and abode with him fifteen days, Gal. 1, 17. 18. Shortly after Saullelt for Tarsus, Peter was busy with missionary work in vVestern Judea, in Lydda, Saron, Joppa, and Oaesarea, Acts 9, 32 fl.; chap. 10. He was again in Jerusalem about the year 37 or somewhat later, Acts 11, 2 :ff. That there was no indication of a primacy or even of a supe- rior position on the part of Peter at that time is evident from the fact that some of the members o£ the congregation at Jerusalem "con- tended with him," calling him to task for his ignoring' of the rules of Levitical purity. vVhen Saul was brought back to Antioch, about 43/4, he remained there £01' at least a year before he and Barnabas made the trip up to Jerusalem with the relief for the brethren, Acts 11,22------30. Now, although Peter evidently was in Jerusalem about this time, it is interesting to note that Saul and Barnabas did not report to him, but to the elders of the congregation, Acts 11, 30. About that time, in the year 44, Peter was still in Jerusalem, for he was imprisoned alter the death of James, the brothel' of J olm, only to be set at liberty by an angel, Acts 12,5-17. This was shortly before the .death of Herod Agrippa I, which occurred in the year 44. The comprehensive account which the Book of Acts gives con- cerning the activity of Peter closes with chapter 12, and it is clear, even at this point, that the alleged presence of Peter in Rome as early as 42 is not in keeping with historical truth. It may well be assumed, however, on the basis o£ the address of First Peter, that he employed the next years in doing mission-work in Northern Asia Minor, in the provinces of Pontus, Galatia (the northern part), Oap- padocia, Asia (the proconsular province, its northern part), and Bithynia. This would also account for the fact that Paul, a few years later, was hindered from doing mission-work in these provinces. We next list thc episode of Gal, 2, 11 :If., since that best agrees with Acts 15,1. That Peter accepted the l'eproof of Paul upon this occa- sion appears from his conduct at the meeting at Jerusalem. Since we now know the time of Paul's entrance into Oorinth on his second The Last Twenty·Five Years of Peter's Life. 111 missionary journey (see the GaIlio inscription and the comment "~thereon in Barton, A1'cheology and the Bible, 439 f.), we are able also to give the time of this meeting, namely, the year 49. That Peter ~~had noW returned to Jerusalem is plainly stated in Acts 15,1:6'. and Gal. 2, 9. 10. This takes seven more years away from the papal claim ,concerning the twenty-five years of Peter's bishopric in Rome. Beyond this year we have no historical knowledge of Peter in any New Testament passage. There are incidental references, of course, as when Paul, in 1 001'. 9, 5, asks the question: "Have we not power to lead about a sister [as] a wife as well as othcr apostles and as the brethren of the Lord and Oephas~" The final reference is that of 1 Pet. 5, 13, which has caused so much contention, since it states: "The church that is at Babylon, elected togethcr with you, saluteth you, and so doth Marcus, my son." This, in the opinion of the anti-Petrine scholars, clinches the matter, for it seems to show that Peter spent the last years of his Hfe in some Babylon, preferably that in the Far East. But the matter is not quite so self-evident and simple, as' we shall presently see. For the present we quote only the rather dry and objective remark of Meusel (sub voce "Babylon"): "Babylon in 1 Petr.5, 13 wil'd enlwede1' buchstaeblich von dern alten Babylon am Buphmt oder von Babylon in Aegypten oder von N eu-Babylon (Be- Zeucia am Tigris) verstanden oder arn bestlln, da uebe1' einen Auf- enthalt des Petrus am Euphmt sonst gar keine Andeutung vorliegt, als svmbolische Bezeichnung fuer Rom gedeutet, was seine Analogie ja auch in der Apolcalypse hat (11,., 8; 16,19 u. 013.)" Are Meusel and his coworkers steeped in a dead traditionalism ~ Let us approach our problem from another angle, one suggested by the reference in 1 Pet. 5, 13 to "Marcus, my son." Acts 12, 12 tells us . that Peter was well acquainted with the mother of J olm Mark, or Marcus, in whose home the congregation met for the great prayer- meeting on the night of Peter's deliverance from prison. That John Mark was himself in Jerusalem at that time, in the year 44, appears from Acts 12,25, since Barnabas and Saul, upon their return from Jerusalem, when they brought the relief for the brethren, took with them John whose surname was MarIe 1I.1:ark was an dV81J!16; to Bar- nabas, a "cousin germane," as the dictionaries have it, which may mean first couRin, but it may also mean that Mary, the mother of Mark, was a sister to Barnabas. It is clear that Peter, during his ministry at Jerusalem, came into close spiritual touch with Mark, and that tho intimacy was later renewed after the young man had earned his SpUl'S in the work of the Lord. This intimacy is brought out in a most interesting way in con- nection with the Gospel of Mark. This gospel, as the leading text- books in New Testament Introduction (Appel, Barth, Feine, Fuer- bringer, Zahn, etc.) bring out, shows a certain dependence upon 112 The Last Twenty-Five Years of Peter's Life. Peter. Justin Martyr, in his Dialog with T'l'ypho, calls the Gospel o£ Mark the "memoirs of Peter." Papias calls Mark the eefO}VEVT~' of Peter, not in the sense of an amanuensis, but in the sense of one transmitting information whieh he has received, so that certain fea- tures of the original form aro still clearly discernible. Similar state- ments are made by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., III, 1, 1), Clemens Alexan- drinus (Hypotyp,), his third reference reading in Latin (ad 1 Pet, 5,13): lvIar'cus, Petd sectato1', praedicante Petro evangelium palam Romae coram quibusdam Oaesa'l'eanis equ'itibus et m1tlta Ohr'isti testi- monia profe1'ente, petitus ab eis, ut possent quae dicebantul' memol'iae comrnendare, scripsit ex his, quae Petro dicta surd, evangelium, quod secundum ]1 arctlm~ vocitatul', But while the Gospel according to St. ~rark is associated with Peter, it is likewise associated, on the basis of internal reasons, with the West, with tllat part of the Roman Empire in which Latin was the speech at least of the common people, where one might expect Latinisms in a Greek dooumont. Robertson says of this phenomenon: "There are a few more Latin words in Mal'k than in the otlwr gospels, but this is certainly only natural if he was in Rome. TllflY are all p01itical, military, or monetary words, just the ones that would per- meate the current Greek. So we :find denarius (Mark 6, 37), cen- turion (15,39.44:), quadrans (12,42), pallet, or camp-bed (2,4. ll. 11), legion (5,9.15), sextarius, or wooden pitcher for measuring liquids (7,4.8), spy, or scout, speculator' (6,27)." (Studies in Mar'k's Gos- pel, 127,) Prof, Fritz Barth of Berne writes in his Einleitung (p. 182): "Die vielen lateinischen WOe1'ter, welche in dem Griechisch dieses Ve1'fasser's vOl'7eommen, ' • , haben auf (lie Ve1'mutung gefuehr·t, dasz das zweite FIvangeZium in Zateinischern 8prachgebiet entstanden sei, 1tnd spezieZl fUB?' ROM scheint zu sp'J'echen, dasz 15,21 ein Rufus als belcannte Per'son vor'ausgesetzt wil'd, welchel' vielZeicht identisch ist rnit 'Rufus, dern Ausenvaehlten irn He'1'l'n', Roem. 16,13,' die von Paulus erwaehnte lJ1 utter desselben waer'e dann die Gattin des Sil1ton von KY1'ene gewesen." Ono conclusion seems warranted on tho basis of internal evidence, namely, that Mark, while associated with Peter, was also associated with Rome. But Mark's relation to the Apostle Paul rests upon an even more solid basis. That ho was the SEll'vant of Saul and Barnabas, with whom he had made the journey from Jerusalem to Antioch, Acts 12, 25, appears from Acts 13, 5. But this fil'st venture of the young man into the field of foreign mission work was evidently too much for his untried soul, and we are told of his defection in Acts 13, 13: II John, departing from them, returned to Jerusalem." That this was really a serious matter, at least in the eyes of Paul, is seen from Acts 15, 38 f., since Paul refused "to take him with them who departed from them from Pamphylia and went not with them to the work." The Last Twenty-Five Years of Peter's Life. 113 But Mark made good the mistake of his early manhood. In the fifteen years between 47 and 62 he became a valued worker in the Ohurch. When Paul, dUl'ing his first captivity in Rome, about the year 62, wrote to the Oolossians, he included the following recommendation: iiAristarchus, my fellow-prisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments; if he come unto you, receive him) ," 001. 4, 10. And somewhat later, dUl'ing the same captivity, he wrote to Philemon, including in his letter greetings also from Marcus, his fellow-laborer, v.24. Approximately five years later, during the second captivity of the apostle in Rome, he wrote to Timothy, then at Ephesus: "Take Mark and bring him with thee, for he is profitable to me for the ministry," 2 Tim. 4, 11. So :Mark was evidently still in the neighborhood of Ephesus, probably in Oolossae, where he had gone about the year 63. Had he, in the mean time, made a jOUl'ney to the Far East in order to be with Peter, when the latter wrote his First Epistle General? It is possible, yes; but probable? Decidedly no. To complete this sketch, it will now be necessary to give at least an outline of the history of the Roman congregation in the first decades of its existence and the relation of Paul (and possibly Peter) to this church. Even if we refuse to associate the founding of this congregation with the reference to the strangers of Rome present at the first Pentecost, we cannot deny the rapid spread of the Gospel which set in after the persecution following the murder of Stephen, Acts 11, 19-21. There must have been a congregation of Ohristians at Rome in the early forties, for by the year 49 its missionary fervor had stirred up some trouble, which resulted in the expulsion, in an altogether indiscriminate manner, of all the Jews of Rome, Acts 18, 2. The date of this expulsion is brought out on the basis of Orosius and Suetonius, the latter remarking, in his Annales (Claud. 25): uJudeaos impulsore Ohresto aBsidue tumultuantes Roma expulit." This is con- firmed also by Dio Oassius and other early witnesses. But after the death of Claudius, in the year 54, the decree was no longer in force, and not only the Jews, but also the Jewish Ohristians quickly found their way back to the capital. An instance of such a return is that of Aquila and Priscilla. About the year 56 they were still in Ephesus, having placed their house at the disposal of the congregation, 1 001'. 16,19, but early in 58 they were back in Rome, for Paul greets both them and the church that is in their house, Rom. 16, 3-5. By this time also the congregation had grown strongly in Gentile members, as the letter clearly shows. At this time no apostle had as yet served the congregation; for this follows from Paul's well-known statement in Rom. 15, 20, about not building upon another man's foundation. Op.2 001'. 10, 15. 16. - It was in the spring of the year 61 that Paul came to Rome as a prisoner who had appealed to the highest COUl't of 8 114 The Last Twenty-Five Years of Peter's Life. the Roman Empire. But, although the Ohristians of Rome and its suburbs honored the apostle by coming out to meet him as far as Appii Forum and tho Three Taverns, thore is no evidonce that Paul ever assumed the bishopric of Rome. Oertain it is that we cannot place Peter in the city at this time. Paul confined himself ohiefly to home mission work and to teaching until, after two years, he received his release, evidently leaving the city as soon as possible, as his state- ments to Philemon and other correspondents would lead us to believe.S) The following points may now be said to stand out clearly: Mark was associated with Peter in person; Mark was associated with Peter in the writing of his gospel. But this gospel was associated with Rome; hence Peter may well be said to bc associated with Rome in his connection with Mark. The conclusion is given additional weight by the fact that Mark was definitely associated with Paul in Rome, in 62/3 and in 67 A. D. There is nothing to hind61' the conclusion that Peter may well have been in Rome between 63 and 67. And this introduces the final factor in the al'g'ument. In July of the year 64, about a year after Paul's release from his first cap- tivity, a te1'l'ible fi1'e swept the city of Rome. The result is well known. TIle Ohristians were blamed for the outbreak of the confla- gration, and Nero staged the first persecution of the N azarenes, the details of which are given not only by Suetonius and Tacitus, but also by Martial and J uvenal and by later writers. This persecution of Nero, commonly believed to have been entirely local, obviously went beyond the confines of Rome and even of Italy, at least in a sporadic fashion, as the various references in the First Epistle of Peter and the Letter to the Hebrews indicate. It was during the aftermath of this persecution that Paul was arrested and taken to Rome. And it is more than probable, it has the support of the best internal evidence, not to speak of the extraneous material listed above, that Peter also was arrested, wherever he may have been, in 65, even if he had not come to Rome as early as 63 or 64, an assumption which would connect him somewhat more closely with the congregation in the capital. This, then, may well be the conclusion of an unbiased study of all source material, including everything that Scripture offers: Peter never was bishop of Rome, least of all did he claim the primacy, and the claim of a twenty-nve-year residence is utterly without foundation. But the authent'ic information, as offered above, will certainly wan'ant the conclusion that Pete'/' may well have come to Rome aft61' the year 63, if only as a captive in the aftennath of 5) For a short history of the congregation at Rome see Iversen, The Roman Oongregation at the Time of Pau~ j Edmundson, The Ohristians in, Rome vn the F'i1'l~t Oent1uy,' an article in the Theo~. Monthly of May, 1926, entitled "The Congregations at Rome and at Antioch," Sermon Study on 1 Cor. 1, 21-31. 115 the N e1'onian persecution, d'u1ing which he also St~ffe1'e(l death as a martyr of the faith. This, by the way, is also in its essential features the position by Iouther in his conclusions on the subject, especially in his writing A 14 das uebe1'christliche, uebe1'geistliche und uebm'7c1lenst- liehe Bueh des Boc7es Emse1's zu Leipzig Antwo1't D·t.lIf. L. There we read: "Although I hold that St. Peter was in Rome, yet I should not want to die on this as on an article of faith. . .. It is no article of faith, and no one is a heretic on this account whether he does not ~believe that St. Peter was ever bishop at Rome [Ztt R01J'b ie gcsessen .~. habe]." (18,1334.) Luther rejects the bishopric of Peter in Rome absolutely, especially that of an alleged twenty-nve-year period, and he rightly concludes that, with the inability to prove the episcopacy and the primacy of Peter, all papal claims fall to thc ground. And that, after all, is the only interest we have in solving this question, without overshooting the mark, in a dispassionate, objective discus- sion of available facts. P. E. KRETZMANN . . . ~ Sermon Study on 1 Cor. 1, 21-31. (Eisenach Epistle-lesson for Quinquagesima Sunday.) This interesting and timely passage is part of an argument against strife and dissensions which threatened to disrupt the congre- gation at Oorinth. Instead of laying the stress where it properly 'belonged, on the preaching of Ohrist Orucined, the Oorinthians at- themselves to the personality of the various preachers and . the special gifts and characteristics of these men and at the same time despised the other teachers and their adherents to such an extent that they were in danger of losing sight of the unity of the Gospel of Ohrist, of creating schisms and disruptions. The apostle st'had called their attention to the fact that Ohrist was their one and only Savior, v. 13. He then brings out in an extended argument that very matters which they placed foremost, human personality, oratory, learning, etc., were by God studiously neglected in His plan of salvation. Far from taking into consideration human wisdom, God rather conceived His plan of salvation with a view to destroy the wisdom of the wise, v. 19. The apostle had asked, "Where is the wise~" etc., v. 20. Not only cabalistic and sophistic quibblings, even honest efforts of the world's philosophers to understand God by their own wisdom are futile, yea, made to appear as foolishness by God's plan of salvation. This assertion, made in the form of a rhetor- ical question, is now proved by the apostle in the opening verse of our Epistle-lesson, which links up with v. 20 by rae, for. V. 21: F01' after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom