Was Peter ever in Rome?

Another tradition claims that he settled in Rome to oppose the Samaritan sorcerer Simon Magus (Acts 8). Justin Martyr in his writings states that Simon Magus was worshipped in Rome as a god on account of his magical powers. On account of it they erected a statue on an island in the River Tiber inscribed "Simoni Deo Sancto." Actually there was found in the year 1574 in the Tiber a stone with the inscription "Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio Sacrumi" i.e. "to the god Semo Sancus," the Sabine Hercules, which is definite proof that Justin Martyr was mistaken. Upon this rests the legend that Peter went to Rome to oppose Simon Magus. It is claimed that Peter was Bishop in Rome for 25 years and founded what is called "the Holy See," which later developed into the abominable papacy with its lies. Peter never saw Rome. As we shall show later in this introduction, there is sufficient Scriptural authority to contradict this legend. Another legend states that he was martyred in Rome, where the Lord appeared to him, when Peter had left the city to escape death. That he should die the martyr's death had been announced by our Lord, as well as the manner of his death by crucifixion. Nobody knows where that death took place. When he wrote his second Epistle it was a brief time before his death (2 Peter 1:14); but that Epistle was not written from Rome.

But some of the points are to be cleared up. First, it is exceedingly doubtful if Peter ever was at Rome. Scripture never shews him to have been there, and it seems to me impossible to reconcile what it does state with his having been there. I admit respectable writers think he was, but scripture speaks only of Paul. Peter certainly did not found the church there. There were many Christians before any apostle was there, and Paul was the first that went. In the free exercise of their ministry, as the Holy Ghost has recorded it and thought proper to give it to us, no apostle founded the church at Rome. Paul, who preached the full and blessed gospel to the Gentiles (which was not Peter's office, as we know he was apostle of the circumcision, or of the Jews) — Paul went there as a prisoner. The gospel was never apostolically in Rome, save as in prison. It is possible that Peter closed his life there; but this is the utmost that can be historically admitted, because we have a divine account of what passed till then, and his presence is incompatible with that account. History is silent for a century afterwards, and then every country sought to have it believed to have been visited, and its chief see founded, by an apostle or apostolic man. John lived at Ephesus, yet he certainly did not found the church there, as we know from scripture. So history alleges that Peter founded the church at Antioch — a statement entirely unfounded, because we have, in the Acts of the Apostles, a long account of the church at Antioch; and all that Peter had to do with it was to divide it, when it existed already, by leading away all the Jews by his dissimulation, so that Paul had to resist him to his face. It is just as little true that he founded the church of Rome. We have Christians at Rome two years at least before Paul went there, and Paul there two years, who began working with the Jews; and none of them, Christians, Jews, or Paul, know anything at all of Peter at Rome. He may have visited Rome to see the Jewish Christians after this, and been martyred there, but that is the utmost possible.

The early fathers record the death of some of the apostles which took place about this time. Without touching the more than doubtful point whether Peter founded the Church of Rome, it appears to be beyond question that he suffered martyrdom in that city during the persecutions by Nero. Clement of Rome speaks of the martyrdom. Ambrose relates that Peter was exhorted to flee from the city, to which he yielded; but on his reaching the gates, he met our Lord. "Lord, where goest thou?" he asked. "I go to Rome," was the reply, "once more to be crucified." Peter at once understood this as a reproof to himself, and he returned. This may have been in a vision, or, what is more probable, a tradition only.

Our Lord had said to him: "When thou shalt be old thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God." (John 21:18-19.) It is agreed by all that he was crucified, and some add that he was crucified head downward at his own request, that he might not die like his Lord.

N*. I do, as having the smallest authority. But here you have not any two agreeing. You may consult Baronius in the first and twenty-fifth year of Peter, and see what he says with Pagius, who notices the attempt to make two comings of Peter, one in Claudius' and another in Nero's reign, and rejects it all, taking the plain statement of Lactantius that the apostles had been preaching everywhere for twenty-five years, and then that Peter came to Rome in the time of Nero (Lac. de Mort. Peter 2, 95). That Peter may have come to Rome for his martyrdom, or to see the Jewish saints there, is possible, though we have little proof of it; but vague and late statements that he ever held the see are mere got-up fiction; that he founded the church of Rome, we know from scripture to be totally false, let the good Irenaeus say what he will. No apostle did; of this we are sure from Paul's epistle to them. If we are to believe Dionysius of Corinth, quoted by Eusebius (2, 25), Peter and Paul both planted the church at Corinth too, a statement useful to shew what such statements and traditions of the Fathers are worth. Yet in this passage of Dionysius we get, if it be true that Peter ever was at Rome, a glimpse of the truth, namely that Peter and Paul were taken prisoners to Rome together, or at least went together there on the journey which ended in their martyrdom; but all is utterly uncertain. The only thing certain is that Peter's sitting — still more his sitting twenty-five years at Rome — is a got-up fable, and a very poor and transparent one.

251 I have spoken on this point here, because we are at the date in the history of Roman pontiffs at which it is first called the chair of Peter, or Peter Bishop of Rome.

Did Peter Write from Babylon or from Rome ?

At the close of the Epistle we read the following salutation: "The church that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you, and so does Marcus my son." "The church that is" does not appear in the original text; it has, therefore, been explained that Peter meant his wife, though it appears more probable that he meant the other elect ones who were with him in Babylon. The fact is established that when he wrote this Epistle Peter was in Babylon. But does this mean the literal Babylon on the banks of the Euphrates or the mystical Babylon, which is Rome ? Roman Catholic writers claim that it means the city of Rome, and a large number of Protestant commentators side with this view. They claim that he was in Rome with Mark. They say that Babylon has the same meaning as the word has in the book of Revelation, that is, not the literal Babylon, but Rome.

There is no definite proof that Rome was universally called " Babylon " before John received it in his Patmos vision; it is claimed that the persecution under Nero led Christians to call Rome by the name of Babylon ; but it is more likely that the name Babylon was widely used for Rome after John had written the Apocalypse. The Apocalypse was written some 25 or 30 years after Peter had written his Epistle, how, then could he have used this mystical name for Rome ? Furthermore, a mystical name is out of keeping in an Epistle. It would be the only instance in the entire epistolar testimony where a place is camouflaged in this way. The use of a mystical name in an Epistle appears strained. It therefore must be the literal Babylon in Mesopotamia. And why should this not be? We read in the second chapter of Acts that among those who were in Jerusalem when the Holy Spirit came to earth were "Parthians, Medes, Elamites and dwellers in Mesopotamia." They heard Peter's testimony and some of them must have been converted. Many Jews dwelt there, and while in 41 A.D. Caligula instituted a persecution against the Jews in Babylon and many left, there was still a large company of them in the fast decaying city.

But the most conclusive evidence against Babylon, meaning Rome, is the complete silence of the Apostle Paul about Peter being in Rome. Paul sent his Epistle to the Roman Church in the year 58 A.D. In that Epistle he greets many believers who were in Rome. If Peter had been there, why did he not mention him also? He went to Rome as a prisoner in the year 61, but there is not a word about meeting Peter in Rome. Finally, when Paul penned his very last Epistle from Rome he makes the significant statement: "Only Luke is with me" (2 Tim. 4:11). This silence about Peter in the Pauline Epistle can only be explained by the fact that Peter was not in Rome at all.

Tradition claims that Peter lived in Rome during his last years and that there he suffered martyrdom. This tradition, however old, is unproved. Paul who wrote various epistles from Rome does not mention Peter once. In 2 Tim. 4:11 Paul writes that only Luke is with him and in verse 16: “At my first answer (judicial hearing) no man stood with me, but all forsook me.” Should Peter have done so? This is unthinkable. And yet most expositors keep to the idea of Peter having been killed in Rome and shortly before that having written his first epistle. The epistle itself does not mention any time of writing. It is generally dated though to the years 60 to 64 AC. Peter himself mentions Babylon as his residence in 5:13 “She that is elected with (you) in Babylon” (JND). There are many different opinions about this verse. Who was she that is elected? Some think of the local church in this place. The election of God in the NT however always refers to the believers and never to the church as a whole (compare Rom. 8:33; 16:13; Eph. 1:4; Col. 3:12; 1 Thess. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13; Titus 1:1; 1 Peter 1:2; 2 Peter 1:10). Surely Peter is speaking of his own wife as according to 1 Cor. 9:5 he took her with him when travelling (compare 2 John 1 + 13).

But what does Peter want to say with “Babylon”? This name has long been declared as an encoded, mystical name of the city with seven hills which is Rome (see especially Rev. 14:8; 17:1-9 and 18:2). But John wrote the book of Revelation probably only 25 to 30 years later and we ignore that this name for Rome was in circulation before that. Those who affirm Peter's stay in Rome inevitably must come to this conclusion (compare Notes on The Epistle to the Romans, 3.a, “The Apostle Peter and Rome”).

Now it seems quite clear that Peter was not at Rome when Paul wrote to the saints there, or he would surely have mentioned his name; neither is there any mention of Peter when Paul arrived at Rome as a prisoner (about A.D. 62); and indeed scripture is quite silent as to Peter ever having been at Rome.

In Acts 12. Peter is at Jerusalem (about A.D. 41); and again in Acts 15 he is also there (about A.D. 50). Then we read of him visiting Antioch (Gal. 2:11), perhaps soon after the council at Jerusalem. All this is entirely opposed to the idea of his having been the founder of the church at Rome, and having resided there as bishop.

According to old church tradition there is said to be a very close relation between the Apostle Peter and the capital of the Roman Empire. Peter reportedly was Bishop of Rome for 25 years and finally suffered martyrdom with the Apostle Paul around the year 64 AC under the Emperor Nero. The oldest but contested testimony of Peter’s martyrdom is the first Epistle of Clemens (around 95 AC). More recent excavations under St. Peter’s Church in Rome did not give any proof for the existence of Peter’s grave which, according to a legend, is supposed to be there.

The New Testament does not give any clear indication that Peter ever went to Rome. Neither he nor the Apostle Paul participated at the formation of the assembly there. Apart from that Peter was the Apostle of circumcision, that is the Apostle of the Jews (Gal. 2:8-9), while Paul was the Apostle of the Nations or the heathen.

In Second Timothy, which Paul wrote shortly before his death from Rome, we find no hint at all of Peter being there, although various other brothers are mentioned by name. It is surely hard to believe that Peter might have been among those that forsook Paul when he had to give his defense before the tribunal (2 Tim. 4:16)!

We know no more of the latter years of Peter’s life from the NT than what he says himself. He then was in Babylon, a city far away in the Roman Empire, where there were a great many Jews and probably also Christian meetings from an early time (compare Acts 2:9; 1 Pet. 5:13).

Now we have the inspired writings of N.T. prophets and apostles. How comes it that, in providing bountifully and unerringly for the church and the Christian, nothing can be produced but such ghosts of so-called tradition, of really patristic confusion? Imagine if you can that Peter was invested with a power which solely belongs to the glorified Head; imagine Christ to vacate His functions, instead of ever living to make them good; imagine the Holy Ghost to have gone back into the heavens whence He came to abide with us and in us for ever. How comes it that there is not one sure testimony to it in a single Gospel or Epistle? Yet we have the apostle writing to the saints in Rome, unfolding fundamental truths, and regulating differences which menaced the peace of the church; but not a whisper about Peter, who is said, by one of the most respectable of early fathers, to have with Paul founded the church there! This we know to have been not only absolutely baseless but contrary to scripture. For how could this be, when Paul wrote as one who had never visited Rome, and altogether ignored Peter there, though he salutes more saints there at that time than in any other epistle? It is certain in fact that Paul was there a prisoner, and a martyr; it is probable that Peter may have been carried there to die; but that both founded the church in Rome, or that either was a bishop there, is a fabrication, in the teeth of powerful evidence in scripture against any such ideas of the Fathers.

The exact date of Peter's visit to Rome has been a subject of great controversy between Catholic and Protestant writers in all ages. But it may now be considered as a settled point, that he did not visit that city till near the end of his life. The date of his martyrdom is also uncertain. Most probably it took place about A.D. 67 or 68, and about the seventieth year of his age. The burning of Rome by Nero is dated by Tacitus about the month of July, 64. The persecution against the Christians broke out soon after; and it was under this persecution that our apostle was honoured with the crown of martyrdom.