This is a few simple arguments for various aspects of Catholic theology. Will it hold up in a court...
The: "IRON THRONE" Roman Papacy argument
POST APOSTOLIC INFALLIBILITY
Delegated power
While it is debatable whether the same "John" wrote Revelation and the Gospel of John...
(I take the position that both were written to some degree by the apostle John)
it should be noted that regardless there is an undeniable connection between the two. Therefore exegesis of Revelation should take John's Gospel into consideration in particular.
It should also be noted that Revelation is likely the last book of the bible written. Most, if not ALL of the 12 aside from John had died before the final form of the book we have today was composed. Tradition holds that it was written with much of the new testament in mind as the author had access to most of it.
Most will grant that the 12 apostles (and even their close associates such as Luke, Paul, Mark, Jude, James); had the charism or delegated authority to teach infallibly. Yet they deny that this continues after the apostolic era.
However in sacred scripture- the letter to Thatira dispels this protestant presupposition...
Revelation 2:24-29: "But to the rest of you in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call the deep things of Satan, to you I say, I do not lay on you any other burden. Only hold fast what you have until I come.
The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end; to him I will give authority over the nations. And he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces.
Even as I myself have received authority from my Father- And I will give him the morning star. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches.’"
INFALLIBLE CHURCH?: In the letter to the Thyatirans Christ says He will (future tense) give the Church authority comparative to the authority that the Father gives the son. how much authority is this?: ALL
.
Mattew 28:18-20: "And Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in Heaven and on Earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age'"
(See also: Phil 2:9-11,Col 1:16-17, Rev 1:5-6)
With scripture supporting this HIGH level of Church authority: This would naturally to include the authority for the Church to discern its OWN level of authority over time.
Once the Church comes to a conclusion on its own authority in certain circumstances; it would then be able to bind these clarifications on the faithful.
Conclusion
Below I will address possible objections. In "the Iron throne" argument I will further show the Petrine/Roman aspects predicted.
On the surface of it though; St John has specified that Jesus compared the authority given to the Church as comparable to the Fathers delegation to the Son.
With the rest of scripture, particularly as Trinitarians who acknowledge Jesus is the Lord of Lords and sovereing over all creation this is not a regular authority.
If a "regular" level of authority was to be conveyed; it would not be comparable to the "Father to Son" delegation of authority.
OBJECTION 1: Governing "or" teaching authority?
Christs authority is also not limited to temporal power; but to teaching authority.
John 7:16: "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me."
John 12:49-50 – “For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me.”
Other verses like John 16:13-15, John 14:16-17, 25-26 clearly show the APOSTLES have this teaching authority. Here St John/Christ extends a similar promise to the future Church.
+It may be countered that the Thyatian promise is explicitly temporal in nature; but I would argue that this supreme (Father to Son) degree of ruling power would necessarily include the ability to arbitrate religious disputes and practices.
+St John also does not specifically say this authority is limited to temporal matters. Given that this is likely the same author that wrote John 12:49-50.
This view would fit more naturally with St Johns Jewish culture; with less of the modern state/religion separation. We see this connection in other scriptures:
1 Timothy 5:17 – "Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching."
John 13:13-15 – “You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet.”
Here we see the inverse, spiritual leaders given disciplinary authority:
Matthew 23:2-3: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice"
+ If this is simply saying "Christians will get temporal power"- it seems unnecessary to go out of the way to specifically compare it to the authority of "the Son from the Father" unless there is a special significance to it.
Elsewhere in the gospels this phrase is used specifically with the delegation to the apostles which includes teaching.
St Johns gospel is "hyperlinked" with references to the rest of the bible; so ideas can be inferred from recurring motifs and quotes from scripture:
Matthew 28:18-20 – "And Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, ... teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.'"
+ Finally; AND MOST IMPORTANTLY:
this letter is written to Churches. The stars/angels may even be an veiled way of speaking of the bishops. It makes sense that power given to a religious class/organization would include religious authority!
+The Greek word used for ruling here is: "ποιμαίνω"; which in other biblical occurrences is not "ruling" but "Shepherding" (or close variation).
Even elsewhere in the same book (Rev 7:17, 12:5)
A common scriptural (especially Johannine) term for spiritual leadership!
(John 10:11-18,10:27-30, 21:15-17)
We can safely infer that this authority- is primarily spiritual as well as political. Even after the time Revelation and thus after the "Apostolic era".
OBJECTION 2: Contingent promise?
+The most simple reply to the objection that this promise is contingent upon the personal morality of the bishops; is that a conditional element is only present with the initial reception of the power. The passage is silent on any conditions after the "iron rod" is bestowed.
+ Even if there are conditions for poor moral behavior; that does not mean that the teaching authority is revoked. Of course there is no guarantee that God will not chastise the Church temporally when her members are not following the teachings!
This does not prove a "Donatist" view that the authority of formal theological bindings of the Church may be heretical based on the virtue of individuals.
Hypothetically parishes may be UTTERLY DESTROYED by God; if her members all turn from Christ and His teachings. This is explicit in the first half of the letter to Thyatira.
That does not mean the teachings of the magesterium are false; but that as Christians we have an obligation to faithfully serve God in our ACTIONS.
Having true doctrine alone does not save the members of the Church, nor guarantee her success!
+St John also gives some allusions that this is not based upon perfect moral character as we see the wicked Caiaphas making a true proclamation. The following scenes are superfluous inclusions in the gospel from a protestant perspective:
John 11:49-52: But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all;
you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish." He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.
you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish." He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.
Another "superfluous" fact from thee gospel is this scene. St Peter alone carries the net (primacy?) ; the net does not break (doctrine?) and the number of fish is a sacred number.
All veiled of course... but potential evidence in the argument for the indefectibility/infallibility of the Roman Church.
Unlike the scene prior to the resurrection presented in the synoptic gospels; here Peter is restored and the net does not break.
John makes clear this detail explicitly, arguably- for a reason.
John 21:11-14: "So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, a 153 of them; and although there were so many, the net was not torn. Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast." Now none of the disciples dared ask him, "Who are you?" They knew it was the Lord. Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them, and so with the fish. This was now the third time that Jesus was revealed to the disciples after he was raised from the dead.
Whats more; when John wrote this the 3 synoptic gospels had already made clear the spiritual metaphor of fishing to the growth of the Church:
(Mark 1:7, Matthew 4:19, Luke 5:10-11)
This helps proves the overall infallible teaching of the Church is typologically prophesied to continue after the apostolic era; despite ALL bishops (including the 12) being sinful and flawed men.
We ought to "do what they say but not copy their actions" as Matthew 23 suggests; and have confidence in them as Hebrews 13:17 says.
OBJECTION 3: not yet applicable?
One may argue that Christ saying "until I come" and "to him who holds until the end" and suggest therefore this is specifically must be:
-for the Saints in heaven
-for "the millennium"
-or in a Preterist sense
-or perhaps none of the above...
+If it is regarding the saints in Heaven, indeed this refutes my argument. However it would show a connection between the Saints and the Church on earth that would imply venerating and seeking their intercession is valid since they rule over us with divinely appointed authority.
+To save room i will not argue preterism or millenialism here; but recommend several rescources that touch on the millennium and the "coming of Christ"/"the end":
-The website "Revelation revolution" run by protestants
-"Coming Soon" by Catholic author Michael Barber
-"Before Jerusalem fell" by Protestant author Kenneth Gentry
-"The Jewish Jesus: How the Jewishness of Jesus Can Transform Your Faith" and "The Apocalypse of Jesus: The Jewish Roots of the Book of Revelation" by Catholic Author Brant Pitre
This supports a partial/full preterist view of Revelation that see Christ's coming and the "end" on some level to the destruction of the temple and/or persecution and the Eucharist.
(Also note partial/full preterism is not fully incompatible with futurist/idealist interpretations)
This is a very in depth topic and I recommend people to go and do their own research on this topic.
+Regardless this passage does not STRICTLY require that the authority comes after "the end".
Instead the "giving" can be done before "the end". John simply clarifies that this will be to a person who conquers and keeps Christ's works (possible allusion the sacraments)- he does not necessarily say or even imply that the giving will be after "the end".
Individual? as for why a singular "he" is used; this could be an allusion to the singular Petrine office of Rome. The Greek here is occasionally rendered as "it"; which could fit for a singular office (as could "he"). But this is not entirely clear and is admittedly not a strong argument.
THE IRON "ROD"
1. Scripture prophesied that Jesus would rule with a "rod of iron"—that is the rod of His "mouth."
I will mostly be letting the patterns of scripture speak for themselves.
It is highly recommended to fully read this blog, then read the referenced scriptures in context observing any apparent patterns and making ones own discernment accompanied by prayer.
Rev 2:18: “And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write: ‘The words of the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like burnished bronze.
Rev 2:24-29: "But to the rest of you in Thyatia, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call the deep things of Satan, to you I say, I do not lay on you any other burden. Only hold fast what you have until I come.
The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end; to him I will give authority over the nations.
And he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces. Even as I myself have received authority from my Father- And I will give him the morning star. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches.’"
we see; the author of Revelation DOES NOT see a contradiction between the Church ruling with the rod of iron.... and Christ ruling with the rod of Iron). We see of Christ:
Rev 12:5: "She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron but her child was caught up to God and to His throne,"
Rev 19:15: "From His mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron."
Rev 3:7: “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens."
Rev 22:16: “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the Churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”
Therefore In Rev 3:7 when referencing the keys that "open and shut" it is a false dichotomy to assert that Jesus OR St Peter has the keys of Isaiah 44 (see end notes). Rather like the "Iron rod" it may be delegated THROUGH the Church. As clearly Christ rules with the rod of iron AND the Church rather than "either/or".
This prediction goes back to the Old Testament:
Jer 1:18: "And I, behold, I make you this day a fortified city, an iron pillar, and bronze walls, against the whole land, against the kings of Judah, its officials, its priests, and the people of the land."
Job 19:23-25: "Oh that my words were written! Oh that they were inscribed in a book!
Oh that with an iron pen and lead they were engraved in the rock forever!
Oh that with an iron pen and lead they were engraved in the rock forever!
For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last He will stand upon the earth."
(additionally psalm 149). Note also: the double edged sword motif is usually used to symbolize sacred scripture. This makes the "rod" worth noting as potentially distinct from scriptural authority.
2. Iron is used in Daniel to refer to the Roman Empire
We will also see the importance of "Bronze" -in Daniel 2 this refers to the Greek empire. This is the other "lung" of ancient apostolic Christianity.
Beginning with one of the most popular prophesies of the coming Messiah/kingdom:
Dan 2:33-35: The head of this image was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its middle and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. As you looked, a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces.
Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.
Dan 2:40: "And there shall be a fourth kingdom strong as iron, because iron breaks to pieces and shatters all things. And like iron that crushes, it shall break and crush all these."
(The mountain grows out from where the Iron was. It can be inferred that this refers to the pagan empire; being that the rest of the statue was also pagan empires. We may infer that the "rock" here is both Christ and His Church)
Dan 7:7: "After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong. It had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet."
Dan 7:11-13: “I looked then because of the sound of the great words that the horn was speaking. And as I looked, the beast was killed, and its body destroyed and given over to be burned with fire. As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.
“I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an eve sting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.
Dan 7:17-22: "These four great beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the earth. 18 But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever."
“Then I desired to know the truth about the fourth beast, which was different from all the rest, exceedingly terrifying, with its teeth of iron and claws of bronze, and which devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet, and about the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn that came up and before which three of them fell, the horn that had eyes and a mouth that spoke great things, and that seemed greater than its companions. As I looked, this horn made war with the saints and prevailed over them, until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given for the saints of the Most High, and the time came when the saints possessed the kingdom.
Dan 7:26-27: (concerning the 4th "iron" beast)
But the court shall sit in judgment and his dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and destroyed to the end.
And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High;
And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High;
His kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.’
Notice themes of judgment- particularly against Israel/Jerusalem in relation to this "iron" symbolism. This will connect back to the letter to Thyatia and help us draw a conclusion
Is 11:4: "But with righteousness He shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; and he shall strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked."
Deut 28:48-53: "therefore you shall serve your enemies whom the Lord will send against you, in hunger and thirst, in nakedness, and lacking everything. And he will put a yoke of iron on your neck until he has destroyed you.
The Lord will bring a nation against you from far away, from the end of the earth, swooping down like the eagle,
a nation whose language you do not understand, a hard-faced nation who shall not respect the old or show mercy to the young. It shall eat the offspring of your cattle and the fruit of your ground, until you are destroyed; it also shall not leave you grain, wine, or oil, the increase of your herds or the young of your flock, until they have caused you to perish.
“They shall besiege you in all your towns, until your high and fortified walls, in which you trusted, come down throughout all your land. And they shall besiege you in all your towns throughout all your land, which the Lord your God has given you. And you shall eat the fruit of your womb, the flesh of your sons and daughters, whom the Lord your God has given you, in the siege and in the distress with which your enemies shall distress you."
(This is EXCEPTIONALLY striking as it is an extremely early text and also mentions "eagles wings". A symbol of the Roman empire; also calling to mind the wings of the woman of Rev 12.)
Ezek 4:1-3: “And you, son of man, take a brick and lay it before you, and engrave on it a city, even Jerusalem. And put siege works against it, and build a siege wall against it, and cast up a mound against it. Set camps also against it, and plant battering rams against it all around. And you, take an iron griddle, and place it as an iron wall between you and the city; and set your face toward it, and let it be in a state of siege, and press the siege against it. This is a sign for the house of Israel."
(context: destruction of Jerusalem:) Jer 6:26-30:O daughter of my people, put on sackcloth, and roll in ashes; make mourning as for an only son, most bitter lamentation,for suddenly the destroyer will come upon us.
“I have made you a tester of metals among my people, that you may know and test their ways. They are all stubbornly rebellious, going about with slanders; they are bronze and iron; all of them act corruptly.
The bellows blow fiercely; the lead is consumed by the fire; in vain the refining goes on, for the wicked are not removed.
Rejected silver they are called, for the Lord has rejected them.”
(with the two fold parallelism of Jeremiah 6 that continues throughout the chapter; Bronze and Iron apply to the "tester" that is sent to destroy Jerusalem.)
Jer 15:11-13: The Lord said, “Have I not set you free for their good? Have I not pleaded for you before the enemy in the time of trouble and in the time of distress? Can one break iron, iron from the north, and bronze? “Your wealth and your treasures I will give as spoil, without price, for all your sins, throughout all your territory. I will make you serve your enemies in a land that you do not know, for in my anger a fire is kindled that shall burn forever.”
Here again we see the destruction of Jerusalem referenced as the breaking of clay vessels, resembling Rev 2:27:
Jer 18:1-10: "The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: “Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will let you hear my words.” So I went down to the potter's house, and there he was working at his wheel. And the vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter's hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to do.
Then the word of the Lord came to me: “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the Lord. Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it"
Simply "being Catholic" is not enough to be saved- there will be punishment if obedience is not kept v9-10, and punishment will be received for the Church and her members being unfaithful.
However when it comes to indefectibility of doctrine this is not presented as conditional. Rather it is guaranteed by the Holy Ghost and the everlasting nature of the New and eternal covenant. When the Church is given authority to "bind and loose" no conditions were attached.
Yet we can see from these verses unfaithfulness by the Church and her members will result in temporal punishments/consequences. This is important for Catholics to remember and not to grow complacent.
Jer 19:1-2: Thus says the Lord, “Go, buy a potter's earthenware flask, and take some of the elders of the people and some of the elders of the priests, and go out to the Valley of the Son of Hinnom at the entry of the Potsherd Gate, and proclaim there the words that I tell you.
Jer 19:10-11: "Then you are to break the jar in the sight of the men who go with you, And shall say to them, ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts: Even so will I break this people and this city, as one breaks a potter's vessel, so that it can never be mended.’"
Ps 2:9: "You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel."
Lam 4:2: “The precious sons of Zion, worth their weight in fine gold—how they are regarded as earthen pots, the work of a potter's hands!”
CONCLUSION
Jesus was prophesied to rule (through the Church) with the entity that destroyed Jerusalem (Rome).
This must be the "rod of His mouth" referred to as "Iron" in prophecy.
This will be a delegated authority which Christ compares to His own authority from the Father (Rev 2:25-27)
A skeptic may say that these passages are unrelated; that "iron" is simply a symbolic coincidence.
However revelation is a single book with recurring motifs that appear to not be accidental.
When it comes to the minor and major prophets; Revelation is absolutely densely packed with exact patterns and quotes from these books. This implies the author wants them to be used for context. A way of hyperlinking this book with the rest of scripture; revealing what was veiled.
These implicit teachings are not alone:
The IRON "GATE"
1. The significance of the Gate:
Acts 12:8-11: "And Peter said to him, 'Dress yourself and put on your sandals.' And he did so. And he said to him, 'Wrap your cloak around you and follow me.' And he went out and followed him; he did not know that what was being done by the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision. When they had passed the first and the second guard, they came to the iron gate leading into the city. It opened for them of its own accord, and they went out and went along one street.
and immediately the angel left him; When Peter came to himself, he said, “Now I am sure that the Lord has sent his angel and rescued me from the hand of Herod and from all that the Jewish people were expecting."
The Prophecy of Peter's Martyrdom links these events typologically (with the "dressing" and "leading")
John 21:18-19: "Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go. (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.)"
+Post death?
In addition the iron gate is opened to gate after he is sleeping; which is used to imply death in some cases (1 Thes 4:13)
Peter is woken by being "struck on his side"; bringing to mind Jesus pierced in His side whilst "sleeping". Could this imply the spiritual opening of Rome will occur after Peter dies? It is admittedly less certain though possible.
Acts 12 is clearly not the final fulfillment of this prophecy; but thematically foreshadows St Peter's Martyrdom at Rome. Some more clues include:
+Not coincidence?
There are many other times "iron" presumably could have been used as a descriptor e.g: to describe the manacles, chains or stocks. Acts 28:20, Acts 16:24, Acts 12:6-7
+Coming full circle
Now we have highlighted the potential significance of this gate miraculously opening on its own accord; it is worth returning to Revelation:
Revelation 3:7-8: “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.
“‘I know your works. Behold, I have set before you an open "door", which no one is able to shut; I know that you have but little power, and yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. "
In Greek the word here for door "θύρα:." Is the same word as the gate that is opened to Peter. This would seem to be an implicit teaching of indefectiblity, as "none may shut".
This is clearly a reference to Eliakim in Isaiah 22 and therefore ALSO Peter in Matthew 16 (See end notes)
+Triples
NOTE: the argument based on triples is admittedly not the strongest evidence of this typology. I have included it as a potential evidence in a larger argument.
-In the first section we saw that the unbreakable net of St Peter occurs "the third time" Christ appears;
-Immediately before Christ asks Peter is he loves Him three times
-The iron gate is the comes after the "first and second guard". It is the third "thing" encountered.
-This is the THIRD time St Peter was arrested in the book of acts
i-Acts 4:3: "And they arrested them and put them in custody until the next day, for it was already evening."
ii-Acts 5:18: "They arrested the apostles and put them in the public prison."
iii- Acts 12:4...
-Likewise regarding the dream we see triples:
Acts 10:19-20: "And while Peter was pondering the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you. Rise and go down and accompany them without hesitation, for I have sent them.”
Acts 11:10-11: "This happened three times, and all was drawn up again into heaven. And behold, at that very moment three men arrived at the house in which we were, sent to me from Caesarea."
-Later; since six men leave with Peter; again there must have been another three men.:
Acts 11:12 "And the Spirit told me to go with them, making no distinction. These six men also accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house."
significance?
Rome is considered the THIRD Petrine See:
i-Alexandria (through his disciple St Mark)
(Mark is also involved in Acts 12)
ii-Antioch being 2nd
(Antioch is referenced in Acts 11 and 13 on either side of this event)
iii-Rome being 3rd
See: Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History ~324 AD. We have no evidence this claim was ever contested by any early Christian.
Regarding Alexandria; The link between St Mark and St Peter is shown even in scripture:
1 Peter 5:13: "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark."
And made explicit by:
Apostolic Constitutions – Book 7, Chapter 46 (~380–400 AD)
"Let the bishops of each Church recognize the one who is the first among them... And let the chairs of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch be honored for their apostolic foundation, since from them the light of the Gospel has spread."
2. Contrast with a false authority:
Acts 12:20-24: "Now Herod was angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon. And they came to him with one accord, and having persuaded Blastus, the king's chamberlain, they asked for peace, because their country depended on the king's country for food. On an appointed day Herod put on his royal robes, took his seat upon the throne, and delivered a speech to them.
And the people were shouting, 'The voice of a god, and not of a man!' Immediately an angel of the Lord struck him down, because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and breathed his last. But the word of God increased and multiplied."
Herod's actions are typologically antithetical to Peter:
Herod goes to Caesarea (Acts 12:19); In Acts 11:11 three men are sent from Caesarea to Peter;
(this is not the same place as Matthew 16; but still linked by the naming, as . This is a VERY common name yet still should not be dismissed when viewed with other parallels.)
+Food
Herod's declaration is concerning food (12:20)
following Peter's declaration about food (11:4-9)
+The receptions:
11:18: "When they heard these things (Peters speech) they fell SILENT. And they GLORIFIED GOD, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”
12:17: "But motioning to them with his hand to be SILENT"
Contrasted with Herod:
12:22-23: And the people were SHOUTING “The voice of a god, and not of a man!” Immediately an angel of the Lord struck him down, because he DID NOT GIVE GOD GLORY
+Stewards
Herod's steward "Blastus" facilitates the audience.
The crowd goes in to see Herod.
St Peter is left waiting outside due to "Rhodas" excitement.
Peters crowd come out to see him.
Mary's steward Rhoda in excitement does not open the gate at first.
After; the gathering is brought out to meet Peter.
+Names
St Luke goes to the effort to name these secondary characters.
"Blastus" means "bud" or "shoot"
"Rhoda" means "rose" or "rose bush"
+The dressings:
12:8: And the angel said to him, “Dress yourself and put on your sandals.” And he did so. and he said to him, “Wrap your cloak around you and follow me.”
12:21: On an appointed day Herod put on his royal robes, took his seat upon the throne...
+ the "laying on of hands":
Acts 12:1: "About that time Herod the king laid violent hands on some who belonged to the church."
is contrasted with the Christian laying on of hands:
Most importantly though:Acts 6:6, Acts 8:17, Acts 9:12, Acts 9:17, Acts 13:3, Acts 19:6
+When Herod speaks (as a "god") he is slain for it
+When Peter speaks on behalf of God it is received by the Church.
+Earlier in Acts 5:1-11; we see another contrast; between solo Petrine authority and king Herod:
But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and with his wife's knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles' feet.
But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.” When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.
After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.” But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” Immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.
We can see connections between this event and Acts 12-13:
+this event also happens in close proximity with an imprisonment and miraculous release; In fact it is situated between the two other imprisonments of Peter (5:17-26 and 4:1-23)
+ the language of "breathed his last" specifically is used of both Herod and Ananias
+ St Peter: "You have not lied to man but to God.” vs Herod: 'The voice of a god, and not of a man!'
Note: when Peter says that they lie to God (v4) and the Holy Spirit (v9) it is PETER who they are talking to DIRECTLY. Thus we see Peter acting as a steward.
The husband and wife must have already talked about this to each other. (v2); and the Holy Spirit being omnipresent heard this; yet it is when the lie is actualized/heard by Peter that the death occurs.
-
CHALLENGE: "does this mean that the legitimacy of the Bishop of Rome can be determined by lying to him and seeing if the person dies immediately?"
This is not an outcome that should be expected.
Just as in 1 Corinthians 11:30 we read: "That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died"- concerning receiving communion in an unworthy manner; these visible signs were given in scripture to teach us spiritual truths that continue after the apostolic era.
Unless you are willing to admit your "Lords supper" is invalid if a person receives it despite being in grave unrepentant sin- and does not get sick or die- then we must seek the ongoing spiritual lesson of these literal, historical events.
namely- the importance of proper reception of the Eucharist; and in this case the authority of the Petrine office contrasted with undelegated human authority
CONCLUSION
Acts 12-13 is the "chiastic center" of Acts. After this the narrative switches to St Paul- including his name changing from "Saul" in every instance prior- to "Paul" (every instance after Acts 13:9). More could be said regarding St Paul also consecrating Rome with his blood.
Yet for now when we see the patterns of scripture deep spiritual truths regarding the Petrine office and authority of the Church can be seen.
While Peter is ontologically equal to the other apostles; typology supports that the keys to the kingdom were given to his office in a unique way.
End note: although it deserves its own post in the future the parallels between Eliakim (Isaiah 22) and Peter (Mattew 16) are worth noting in with the Iron argument in mind:
-Open/shut and bind/loose. Both are ratified: shall remain open/shut; shall be bound/loosed in Heaven.
-Eliakim means "God will build". Jesus says "I will build"
-Both compared to objects; Eliakim- peg, Simon- rock
-Isaiah 22:16-18 speaks of a tomb in "rock" and is reminiscent of the rock thrown into the statue of Daniel 2 (referring to Christs coming Kingdom), though antithetically as:
-Eliakim given prophecy of future failure through downwards weight ("fasten in wall, "they will hang", "cut down and fall"). Peter being built up and succeeding ("upon, I will build", "the gates shall not prevail")
-Keys to kingdom of Heaven given to Peter, key to house of David to Eliakim
-Both sequences begin mentioning the persons father (Is 22:20, Mttw 16:17). This is of course common practice but worth noting regardless.
-Later in the book the patriarch Abraham is compared to a rock (Isaiah 51:1-2). While God and Christ are called or compared to rock; and other figures like Moses and judges are seen as firm or "rock-like"; no other mere human is alluded to being a rock so strongly.
-Many puns are made by Christ that are lost in English translations. Perhaps it is not by accident that: "Cephas" sounds so similar to the high priests name: "Caiaphas"
A final point for those discerning the faith: YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE 100% CONVINCED OF EVERY CATHOLIC DOCTRINE.
As long as there is confidence in the magisterial authority; the "Catholic" position needs only seem reasonable.
Much like with trusting the bible; if something the bible teaches seems contrary to natural instinct, trust in the bible can bring uncertainty to certainty through the epistemic confidence in the authority that teaches it!
