Revelation - 3j

REVELATION – chapter 2-3 (CONT)

7 CHURCH AGES

7 PARABLES OF THE KINGDOM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Ephesus

Smyrna

Pergamum

Thyatira

Sardis

Philadelphia

Laodicea

30 – 100

100 – 300

300 – 600

600 – 1500

1500 – 1700

1700 – 1900

1900 –

Apostolic Church

Persecuted Church

State Church

Papal Church

Reformation Church

Missionary Church

Apostate Church

Sower

Wheat and Tares

Mustard Seed

Leaven

Hidden Treasure

Pearl of Great Price

Dragnet

Matt 13:33 (Amplified Bible) He told them another parable, “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and worked into three measures of flour until all of it was leavened.”

“A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough” (Gal 5:9, NASB). It spreads dramatically causing a whole loaf of bread to rise.

Some try to interpret the leaven spreading through the dough as symbolizing the spreading of the gospel in the whole world (similar to the mustard seed in the previous parable).

However leaven always has a negative connotation in the Bible.

DELAYED OBEDIENCE: At the Exodus from Egypt, leaven represented “delayed obedience.” The Israelites did not have time to wait for the dough to rise with leaven. They had to obey promptly and escape from their slave-masters quickly before Pharoah changed his mind!

Deut 16:3 (NIV) Do not eat it with bread made with yeast, but for seven days eat unleavened bread, the bread of affliction, because you left Egypt in haste …

PROHIBITED FROM USE IN SACRIFICE: Leaven sets the dough in fermentation.

Ex 34:25 (ESV) “You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with anything leavened, or let the sacrifice of the Feast of the Passover remain until the morning.

The two prohibitions are connected because anything fermenting or putrefying was not admissible in sacrifice. (W. R. Smith, Rel. Sem. 221 n.)

HYPOCRISY: Luke 12:12 Jesus began to speak first to his disciples, saying: “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.”

SIN: Speaking of the sinner in the Corinthian church, Paul writes, “Don’t you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough?... Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.” (1 Cor 5:1-8)

FALSE TEACHING: It was used by Paul (Gal 5:9) to symbolize the legalistic doctrine of men being mixed with the doctrine of God’s grace, thereby corrupting it. Jesus also uses it to refer to false teaching.

Matt 16:11-12… But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Jesus told his disciples to beware of the leaven of Herod (Mark 8:15).

The teaching of the Sadducees included a denial of the spirit world and the resurrection.

But there was also an element of power mongering and political abuse. The Sadducees comprised of rich, aristocratic families.

They dominated the Sanhedrin (the supreme judicial council of Judaism which met at the Temple) and the prominent positions of chief priests and High Priest.

The office of High Priest was originally hereditary and for life.

In the 2nd century BC, however, bribery led to several reappoint-ments, and the last of the high priests were appointed by government officials or chosen by lot. *

In Jesus’ day, the high priests were appointed by the Roman rulers. **

Hence, the Sadducees collaborated with, and were generally on good terms with the Roman rulers, in return for political favours.

* https:// britannica.com/ topic/high-priest ** Annas was appointed by the Roman legate Quirinius as the first High Priest of the newly formed Roman province of Judaea in AD 6, Caiaphas was appointed in AD 18 by the Roman prefect Valerius Gratus.

They opposed Jesus not only because of his teaching on the resurrection (Matt 22:23-32) but because they viewed him as a threat to the political status quo and their favoured position with the Romans.

John 11:47-50 (NIV) Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin. “What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.” Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.

In this study we’ll cover “the leaven of the Sadducees” in the period AD 600-1500 – i.e. an emphasis on the political rather than religious matters.

Church governance

Supremacy of Rome

Primacy of Peter

Apostolic succession

Temporal power

Simony and murder

Is there a difference between a pastor, elder and bishop?

The English term “bishop” is transliterated from the Greek “episkopos” and simply means “overseer.”

In the New Testament it was used interchangeably with elder (presbyter) and pastor (poimen).

Over time, from the simplicity of the biblical deacon and elder, churches added additional offices.

Jerome (347-420) pointed out that overseers and elders are the same office. In spite of the practice of the day, he notes that originally local churches were governed by a plurality of elders.

“The elder is identical with the bishop, and before parties had so multiplied under diabolical influence, the Churches were governed by a council of elders.” (Commentary on Titus)

Gradually Church governance became more centralized and hierarchical (Episcopal governance).

From the 2nd century, bishops became distinguished from presbyters (elders). The bishop became the president of the council of presbyters.

In the 4th century the office of Metropolitan (archbishop) was recognized as being superior to the office of bishop. The Metropolitan Bishop presided over multiple bishops in a metropolis (most important city in a country or region).

Patriarchal bishops presided over important geographical regions.

7th century: The Bishop of Rome or ‘pope’ claimed authority over the entire church and was considered to be Universal bishop.

Priests became known by distinctive titles like ‘Father’ . This was something Jesus was critical of. He also gave us explicit instructions not to give each other religious titles like ‘father’ as these terms are applicable to God alone.

Matt 23:7-9 (NIV) … they love … to have men call them ‘Rabbi.’ But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

Jesus immediately adds this caution, which seems to have been forgotten by those in the church striving for these titles he forbade, “The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.” (Matt 23:11-12)

The title “Pope’ comes from the Latin “papa” meaning “father.” The title “Holy Father” applied to the pope today, is used only once in Scripture (John 17:11) where Jesus uses it to address the Father.

Similarly, the title “Patriarch” used in Orthodox circles is derived from a Greek word (patriarchēs), meaning “chief or father of a family.”

In the 3rd century the Bishop of Rome, Stephen (254- 257) had unsuccessfully tried to assert authority over the churches of Asia Minor and Africa. *

At the time of Constantine (early 4th cent.), the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch were accorded full jurisdiction over their provinces, without a hint that they were subject to the Bishop of Rome.

In 341 Eastern bishops met in Antioch. Bishop of Rome Julius’ letter from the recent council at Rome was considered. The Eastern bishops denied that Rome had a right to judge decisions reached in the East.

* Stephen had assumed that he could lay down the law to the churches in Asia. He ‘excommunicated’ Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, together with his congregation, because they rebaptised those who came from heretical fringe churches. In response, writing in the name of 80 bishops, Cyprian, the Bishop of Carthage, declared: “None of us regards himself as the Bishop of Bishops or seeks by tyrannical threats to compel his colleagues to obey him.”

In 367 the Western Roman emperor Valentinian I gave the Bishop of Rome the right to judge cases against other bishops. Damascus, Bishop of Rome (366-384) addressed his fellow bishops for the first time as ‘sons’, instead of the traditional ‘brothers’.

Siricius (384-399) claimed that “the care of all the churches” was “committed to him.” Innocent I (401-417) claimed authority over the churches in Africa. *

Leo I (440-461) asserted authority over other bishops on the basis that the Bishop of Rome is the successor to Peter, ** despite resistance from the church in Gaul. ***

* He wrote to the African churches that “it has been decreed by a divine, not a human authority, that whatever action is taken in any of the provinces, however distant or remote, it should not be brought to a conclusion before it comes to the knowledge of this see, so that every decision may be affirmed by our authority.” ** He declared himself Lord of the Whole Church, advocated exclusive universal papacy, and proclaimed that resistance to his authority was a sure path to hell. He obtained from Western Emperor Valentinian III recognition for his claim as Primate of All Bishops (445). *** In 454 Hilary, Bishop of Arles, asserted that the church of Gaul was independent of Rome. Valentinian III told the provincial governor, “if any bishop summoned to trial before the Bishop of Rome shall neglect to come,” he was to force him.

By the end of the 4th century 5 primary centres were recognised: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. The bishops over these areas were called Patriarchs, each in control of their own area.

After the division of the Empire into West and East (395 AD), Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria acknowledged the leader-ship of Constantinople.

Subsequently, the struggle between Constantinople and Rome began.

The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), comprised of bishops from all over world, gave the Patriarch of Constantinople equal prerogatives with the Bishop of Rome.

In 527 Emperor Justinian (527-565) referred to the patriarch of Constantinople as “the head of all other churches”.

Boniface III had a close relationship with the Byzantine Emperor Phocas (r. 602-610). He obtained a decree from him proclaiming Boniface as the “Head of all the Churches”. This ensured that the title of "universal bishop" belonged exclusively to the bishop of Rome, and ended the attempt by Patriarch Cyriacus of Constantinople to obtain this title.

After the Muslim invasions of Egypt and Syria in 638–640, the bishops of Rome and Constantinople were alone in possessing any real power (with Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria normally being under Muslim control). *

* Antioch (969-1084,1098-1268) and Jerusalem (1099-1187, 1229-1244) also had some periods under Byzantine and Crusader control in this period.

In 1054 things eventually came to a head between the eastern and western church because of political differences (disagreements over the authority of the Pope) and religious differences. *

Pope Leo IX excommunicated Michael Cerularius, the Patriarch of Constantinople and the entire eastern church. The eastern church retaliated by excommunicating the Pope and the Roman church with him. **

* E.g. the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, the addition of the filioque clause to the Nicene Creed. ** The excommunications were not lifted until 1965.

The resulting split permanently divided the European Christian church into two major branches: the Western Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. This split is known as the Great Schism.

Constantinople was the seat of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Patriarch. The fall of Constantinople in 1453 to the Ottoman Turks disrupted the power and influence of the Orthodox Church.

Many Orthodox churches and monasteries were converted into mosques or fell into disrepair under Ottoman rule. The Ecumenical Patriarch was allowed to continue functioning, but his authority and influence were diminished.

The pope remained the only one of the original 5 patriarchs who operated in an area that was not dominated by Islam.

This doctrine holds that Peter was made the head of the church by Jesus, was the rock the church was built on, was given the keys of the kingdom, and ultimately was the head of the Roman church (or first pope).

Damascus (bishop of Rome from 366-384) wrote that Rome was the “first see of the apostle Peter”.

In 382 a council meeting at Rome stated that Roman primacy is not founded on synodical decisions, but on the promise of Christ to Peter.

Matt 16:18-19 (NKJV) “And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

In the Greek there is a play on words:

petros: singular masculine - meaning a single stone.

petra: singular feminine - meaning a rock, or cliff.

PETER IS THE ROCK:

While the Catholic Church insists that Peter is the rock, many Protestants hold one of two alternate views about the rock (which is the foundation of the church) based on an interpretation of this passage in the light of the entire Scripture.

PETER’S CONFESSION IS THE ROCK:

In the context, Peter has just made a confession of faith in Jesus, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” It is the essence of the NT teaching that the foundation of the church, is this belief that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God”. It is therefore Peter’s confession of faith in Christ that Jesus pronounces as the ‘rock’ upon which he will found his church.

JESUS IS THE ROCK:

Elsewhere, the term ‘petra’ is applied to Christ.

1 Cor 10:4 (NASB) … for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ.”

In the broader context of scripture, it is clear that the church is not built on Peter alone.

Eph 2:19-21 (NIV) Consequently, you are … members of his household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.

In AD 397 Augustine identified Peter as the Rock. *

But what many aren’t aware of, is that Augustine changed his mind on the interpretation of this passage and later (in AD 427) identified Christ as the Rock. He suggests Peter symbolizes the entire church and says the whole church, not just Peter, received the ‘keys’. **

* Christian Combat, 31:33 ** Retractations, 1:21

At the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), Peter was present and spoke but James (Jesus’ brother) appears to be ‘chairing’ the proceedings.

After Peter speaks and makes his opinion clear, (15:10-11) the matter is not considered closed because Peter is the supposed “head of the church.” James subsequently closes the discussion and it is his summary * that forms the essence of the letter that is subsequently drafted and sent to the churches.

* Acts 15:19-20 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.”

Early Church tradition places James as the first leader of the Jerusalem church. * Yet we know from Paul that Peter, John and James were residing in Jerusalem. (Gal 1:18)

When Paul lists all three of these apostles as ‘pillars’ at the Jerusalem church, he names James first (Gal 2:9).

In Galatians 2:11-21 Paul rebukes Peter. Who ever heard of a ‘pope’ getting publicly rebuked and straightened out by a subordinate? Lucky for Paul that Peter didn’t lose his cool and excommunicate him.

* Eusebius records that Clement of Alexandria related, “This James, whom the people of old called the Just because of his outstanding virtue, was the first, as the record tells us, to be elected to the episcopal throne of the Jerusalem church.”

Writing to elders, Peter humbly calls himself a “fellow elder” (1 Pet 5:5) and does not claim any preeminence. Yet reading the writings of some later popes, they go on and on about their authority over all the bishops and all the churches.

Peter explicitly cautions against autocratic and dictatorial leadership, something that would plague the church in later years.

1 Pet 5:2-3 (NIV) Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers (episkopeo) —not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.

Jesus never appointed Peter as the earthly head for the simple reason that the universal Church has no earthly head and was never meant to have one.

The Bible only calls Christ the head of the church.

Eph 5:23 … Christ is the head of the church, his body… [cf. Col 1:18]

Based on the NT, it is extremely difficult to prove that Peter even went to Rome. If he did it was shortly before his death; he never founded the church, and was not regarded as the head of the church.

Paul wrote the Book of Romans around 57 AD to an already established church. Who founded the church at Rome? Possibly those who had been saved at Pentecost, where there were “visitors from Rome” (Acts 2:10).

57 AD: Peter was not the head of the church at Rome, or why would Paul snub him when he greets 28 people in his epistle to the Romans. He instructs the Christians in Rome to “Greet Priscilla and Aquila … Greet also the church that meets at their house.” (Rom 16:3-4)

60-62 AD: Luke never mentions Peter in Acts 28, during Paul’s 2-year house arrest in Rome (Acts 28:16–31). Paul never mentions Peter in his prison epistles written from Rome (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon).

62-64 AD: Paul is possibly released and does further mission work.

64-67: Nero burns Rome and subsequently blames the Christians. Paul is rearrested and imprisoned (2 Tim 1:16–17).

64-66 AD: 2 Timothy was written shortly before Paul’s death (4:6-8) in Rome. Mark is not in Rome but Paul requests Timothy to bring him (4:11). Perhaps Peter arrived in Rome at this point. According to tradition Mark acted as his interpreter when he preached in Rome.

Some believe that Peter’s reference to writing from Babylon (1 Pet 5:13) was an allusion to Rome. Mark and Silas were with Peter then (5:12-13).

64-67 AD: There is unanimous support from early church writers that Peter was crucified in Rome. 1 2 Peter was written shortly before his death (2 Pet 1:14). He fondly mentions Paul and defends his epistles (3:15-16). Irenaeus (190) records that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome”. 2

1 E.g. Tertullian (AD 200) noted of Rome, “How happy is that church … where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord.” (The Demurrer Against the Heretics) 2 Against Heresies 3:1:1

Peter and Paul, late 4th century etching from the grave plaque of Asellus in Rome.

The doctrine of Apostolic Succession maintains that the leadership of the Church today has been passed through unbroken lines of bishops beginning with the original apostles.

The Catholic Church has traditionally been the most vocal in claiming unique legitimacy in terms of Apostolic Succession based on the assertion that Peter, believed to be the leader of the Church, was the first Bishop of Rome. They claim an unbroken line of Popes from Peter to the present day. * The primacy of Peter was then extended through apostolic succession to have been inherited by future bishops of Rome.

Most Protestant Churches reject this doctrine.

* In 256 AD Firmilian (Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia) wrote of the bishop of Rome, “… I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid …” (Epistle 74.17)

There is no agreement among the earliest Christian writers as to who the first bishop of the church at Rome was. Some say Linus and others say Clement. As to who they were appointed by, the opinions included Paul, Peter, or both.1

The reality is that there were not single bishops over any of the churches in the 1st century. The practice (as indicated in Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus) was to appoint a plurality of elders, not a single bishop.

1 Irenaeus (2nd cent.) writes that Paul and Peter “having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy.” (Against Heresies 3:3:2-3, cf. 2 Tim 4:21) Tertullian (3rd cent.) says that Clement was the first bishop of Rome – appointed by Peter. (Prescription of the Heretics, 32) Eusebius (4th cent.) writes that in the time of Trajan, “Clement still ruled the church of Rome, being also the third that held the episcopate there after Paul and Peter. Linus was the first, and after him came Anencletus.” (Church History, Bk. 3, 21:2-3) The Apostolic Constitutions (4th cent.) says concerning bishops “of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul, and Clemens, after Linus' death, the second…” (Book VII, Section 4, XLVI)

The earliest evidence indicates that single bishops over churches were a later 2nd century development. In the 1st century there was no single bishop appointing a single bishop to succeed him.

Clement resided in Rome (Phil 4:3) and wrote a letter to the Corinthian church around 96 AD. He reminds them that the apostles had appointed “bishops and deacons” 1 there. He uses the terms bishops (overseers, episkopos) and elders (presbyters) interchangeably. He speaks of a plurality of leadership, encouraging them to “submit yourselves to the presbyters”. 2 Yet this was the very Clement that later tradition calls the first (or second, or third) bishop of Rome (after Peter, of course).

Circa 108 – 137 AD, the disciple of John, Polycarp wrote that Christians were “subject to the presbyters and deacons.” 3

1 Letter to the Corinthians, Ch 42 2 Ibid., Ch. 57 3 Epistle to the Philippians Ch. 5

Temporal power refers to the worldly power held by the state or secular authority, in contrast to the church or spiritual authority.

With state recognition of Christianity in the 4th century, the bishop came to be regarded not only as a church leader but also as an important figure in secular affairs. *

As the Middle Ages advanced, the system of delegation of duties became excessively organized, and an ecclesiastical bureaucracy came into being. A complex hierarchy of subordinate officials acted on the bishop’s behalf. Although bishops made important contributions to the medieval state, this activity interfered with the office of church leader. *

* https:// britannica.com/ topic/ episcopacy

The Western empire, under weak emperors, started breaking up before the barbarians.

Leo I (440-461) obtained from Western Emperor Valentinian III imperial recognition for his claim as Primate of All Bishops (445). In 452, on behalf of Valentinian, Leo negotiated with Attila the Hun and persuaded him to spare the city of Rome. Then in 455 Leo induced Genseric the Vandal to have mercy on the city.

In Rome, there was a decline of state power and no more Western Emperor after 476 AD. Free of civil authority, the Pope became the most commanding figure in the West.

In the 6th century, the Eastern (Byzantine) Emperor Justinian I reconquered much of the former territory of the Western Roman Empire including Rome. Ravenna became the seat of the Byzantine governor of Italy.

But in 751 the Lombards under king Aistulf conquered Ravenna and subsequently demanded the submission of Rome and tribute. Pope Stephen II unsuccessfully tried to negotiate with Aistulf to convince him to back down.

When this failed, Stephen sent envoys to Pepin the Short, king of the Franks, requesting his support.

In 755, the Franks defeated the Lombards, and Aistulf promised under oath to return Ravenna and the other cities he had occupied to the Pope. As soon as the Franks left, Aistulf disregarded the treaty and put Rome under siege.

The Pope again appealed to the Franks. A Frankish army invaded Italy again and defeated the Lombards. Aistulf was forced to give hostages and pay annual tribute to the Franks.

He also had to give the pope the lands in Italy which the Lombards had taken from the Byzantine Empire.

These lands would become the Papal States and would be the basis of the papacy's temporal power for the next eleven centuries.

Why did Pepin do this?

Pope Stephen II used a document called the “Donation of Constantine” in his negotiations with the Frankish king, Pepin. It was an alleged imperial decree made by Emperor Constantine in 324 AD where this territory in Italy was given to the Bishop of Rome.

According to the document, the Bishop of Rome, Sylvester supposedly cured Constantine of leprosy when he baptized him, and he rescued the Romans from a local dragon that was bothering them. In gratitude the emperor granted him authority over the city of Rome and the entire western Roman Empire.

Sylvester was also granted “supremacy as well over the four principal sees: Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, as also over all the churches of God in the whole earth.”

But in 1440, Lorenzo Valla, an Italian Catholic priest questioned the authenticity of the document e.g. Constantine was not baptized by Sylvester of Rome (as the document claimed), but by Eusebius of Nicomedia.

Another glaring error in the document was the fact that it quoted from Jerome’s translation of the Bible, despite the fact that Jerome was born 26 years after the alleged date it was written.

Although the Catholic Church has now admitted that the document is fraudulent, its gave the Church great power for centuries. It deceived many to believe in the authority of the Church of Rome for a great part of the Middle Ages and provided the Church of Rome power over both church and state.

Pepin’s son Charlemagne (c. 742-814) became the king of the Franks in 771. He ruled all of modern France, Belgium, Holland, nearly half of modern Germany and Austria-Hungary, and more than half of Italy and northeastern Spain.

In 800 he was crowned the first Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Leo III, establishing another Eastern “Roman” kingdom with a Christian king.

After securing Charlemagne’s protection, Pope Leo III separated from the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire and became the supreme bishop in the West.

Medieval Europe was characterized by a constant power struggle between the popes (the Church) and the European monarchs (the state) over the ability to appoint bishops and even popes.

A series of popes in the 11th and 12th centuries undercut the authority of the Holy Roman Emperor and other European monarchs, beginning with a infamous conflict between Pope Gregory VII (c. 1020 – 1085) and Henry IV (King of Germany from 1054 to 1105, King of Italy and Burgundy from 1056 to 1105, later Holy Roman Emperor).

As for imitating the worldly political leaders in their power mongering, Jesus explicitly instructed his disciples not to do this. This was prompted by James and John seeking preeminence above the other disciples.

Matt 20:25-28 (NIV) Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve…”

Pope Gregory VII claimed that the Pope had the following powers, which we’ll contrast with Scripture:

The Roman church has never erred, nor can it ever err.

1 John 1:8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

The Pope can be judged by no one on earth.

1 Pet 2:13-14 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors…

He can dethrone emperors and kings and absolve their subjects from allegiance to their ruler.

Titus 3:1 Remind the people to be subject to (civil) rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good

All princes are obliged to kiss the Pope’s feet.

Jesus said, “Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. (John 13:14-15)

Innocent III (1198-1216) exercised the most temporal power of all the Popes. He claimed to be “Supreme Sovereign over the Church and the World.” “All things on earth and in heaven and in hell are subject to the Vicar of Christ.”

There were ongoing disputes between King Philip IV of France and Pope Boniface VIII in the years 1296 to 1303 over whether the clergy could be taxed without papal approval.

In his famous Bul, “Unam Sanctam” Boniface said, “We declare, affirm, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary for salvation that every creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

In 1309, the Papal Palace was moved from Rome to Avignon in southeastern France. The move was made by Clement V, as he sought the protection of the French monarchy from rebellions in Rome. This lasted nearly 70 years and became known as the “Babylonian Captivity” of the popes.

After that, for 40 years (1377-1417), in what is called the “Western Schism”, there were two sets of Popes, one at Rome and the other at Avignon, each claiming to be the sole “Vicar of Christ,” hurling anathemas and curses at each other. *

In the latter part of the “Western Schism” period there were 3 popes at once, in Avignon, Rome and Pisa.

* Ibid.

Simony is the sale of Church offices for money. It is named after Simon Magus (Acts 8) who offered Peter and John payment, so that anyone he would place his hands on would receive the Holy Spirit, i.e. trafficking spiritual things for money.

Although considered a serious offense against canon law, simony went from an occasional scandal to being widespread after the 9th century.

Kings, Emperors, Popes, cardinals and bishops often received substantial sums for selling Church offices to the highest bidder, regardless of fitness or character. *

* E.g. John XIX (1024-1033) bought the office of the Pope with open bribery. Benedict IX (1032-1048) was made Pope as a 12-year-old boy through a money bargain with the powerful families that ruled Rome.” John XXIII (1410-1415) bought the Papal Office; and sold Cardinalates to children of wealthy families. Sixtus IV (1471-1484) was implicated in a plot to murder Lorenzo de Medici and others who opposed his policies, and used the Papacy to enrich himself and his relatives. He made eight of his nephews Cardinals while as yet some of them were mere boys. Innocent VIII (1484-1492) multiplied church offices and sold them for vast sums of money. Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503) bought the Papacy; and made many new cardinals, for money. The teenage mistress of Pope Alexander VI, Giulia Farnese, “obtained a cardinal’s red hat for her brother (thereafter known as ‘the Petticoat Cardinal’), who later became Pope Paul III (1534-49) and convened the Council of Trent to counter the Reformation. (Dave Hunt: A Woman Rides the Beast)

In 1032 Benedict IX became pope through his father’s use of bribery. His papacy was so scandalous (including allegations of adultery, rape, sodomy, bestiality and murder) that the people of Rome forced him to flee the city, and elected a new pope, Sylvester III.

Benedict soon returned and deposed Sylvester, who had been pope for only 22 days. But Benedict wanted to marry his cousin so he sold the office of pope to Gregory VI and resigned. However when the marriage deal fell through, he regretted his decision and reclaimed the papacy. Eventually the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry III intervened and Benedict was again deposed.

But on the death of Pope Clement II, Benedict seized the opportunity to return to power. This was short-lived as German troops soon ousted him. He refused to appear on charges of simony and was excommunicated.

In 1494, Adam of Genoa, a member of the Carmelite order, was found murdered in his bed after preaching against simony. The issue would be periodically addressed but it was only after the 16th century that it disappeared in its most flagrant forms.

Around 7 popes were murdered between 882-984 AD, often by their successor, although one (John XII, 955– 964) was allegedly murdered by the jealous husband of the woman with whom he was in bed. 1 2

In addition Clement II (1046–1047) was allegedly poisoned. Celestine V (1294–1296), allegedly murdered in post-abdication captivity by his successor, Pope Boniface VIII. 2

1 John VIII (872–882)was allegedly poisoned and then clubbed to death, Stephen VI (896–897) was strangled. Leo V (903)was allegedly strangled. John X (914–928) was allegedly smothered with a pillow. Benedict VI (973–974) was strangled. John XIV (983–984) died either by starvation, ill-treatment, or direct murder. 2 https:// en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ List_of_popes_who_died_violently

Rodrigo Borgia, who became Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503), committed his first murder at the age of 12. *

He was “called the most corrupt of the Renaissance Popes, licentious, avaricious, depraved; had a number of illegitimate children, whom he openly acknowledged and appointed to high church office while they were yet children, who, with their father, murdered cardinals and others who stood in their way.” **

* https:// newworldencyclopedia.org/ entry/ Alexander_VI ** Halley’s Bible Handbook

Because Alexander needed funds to carry out his various schemes, he began a series of confiscations, of which one of the victims was his own secretary. *

The process was simple: any cardinal, nobleman or official who was known to be rich would be accused of some offence; imprisonment and perhaps murder followed at once, and then the confiscation of his property. The least opposition to the Borgias was punished with death. *

* Ibid.

Dr. Ken Curtis (Christian History Institute) wrote, “As a Protestant believer, I absorbed a common attitude among us that asks: How did the church ever survive the Middle Ages? How could the church sink so low? …How could both doctrine and practice become so corrupt?

I have to now admit that the more I learn of this period, the more I come to marvel they did as well as they did. In every generation there were godly men and women who followed Christ with a devotion we would look far to find today.

The medieval church met just about every barbarian threat across Europe and brought brutal peoples to some level of Christian understanding and practice.

I dreamt recently that we 20th century Christians and churches will have far more to answer for than our medieval ‘dark age’ predecessors at the Great Judgment when the Lord takes into account the light we each had.”

AUTHOR: Gavin Paynter

For more sermon downloads: https://agfbrakpan.com

For more sermon downloads by Gavin Paynter: https:// agfbrakpan.com/free-sermon-downloads-by-speaker/ Gavin%20Paynter

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

Illustrations from http:// freebibleimages.org

Unless otherwise stated, Scripture quotations are taken from the NIV: THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

Scripture quotations taken from the NASB: New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation Used by permission. (http:// Lockman.org)

Scripture quotations are taken from the ESV: Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Those supporting apostolic succession claim that Jesus effectively gave his apostles a ‘blank check’ to run his church, by giving them the ‘keys of the kingdom’ (Matt 16:19).

KJV – “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven…”

But:

The same keys of the kingdom given to Peter in Matthew 16 are given to all the disciples in Matthew 18.

Using the keys of the kingdom is an endorsement of what has been decided in heaven, rather than dictated by the apostles.

Both Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 use an unusual Greek verbal construction (a periphrastic future perfect). It is best translated by the NASB, “Whatever you shall bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” *

The NIV footnote indicates that “will be bound” can also be translated “will have been bound”. The NKJV footnote says, “Or will have been bound . . . will have been loosed”.

Thus the binding and loosing by God in heaven precedes the binding and loosing on earth by the church. The church’s action on earth reflects God’s judgment in heaven. The church follows God, not the other way around. * Grudem W, Systematic Theology, Zondervan, 1994