# Peter, the first Pope of Rome



## blhowes (Aug 14, 2005)

I had always been taught that there's no evidence that Peter went to Rome, much less became the first pope of Rome. From the scriptures, I don't see any evidence that he was at Rome. Does the historical evidence, outside of the scriptures, support the catholic claim of Peter being in Rome and being the leader of that church?


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Aug 14, 2005)

Sorry if this possibly changes the topic, delete it if it does too much, but if Peter did go to Rome does that change much?


----------



## blhowes (Aug 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Did you just type something about Rome?


Yeah, I just got to thinking today on the way home from mass that... (jk)


----------



## blhowes (Aug 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Abd_Yesua_alMasih_
> Sorry if this possibly changes the topic, delete it if it does too much, but if Peter did go to Rome does that change much?


For me, no, not at all. I'm just curious, for a couple of reasons.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 14, 2005)

There is zero evidence inside or outside the Scriptures that Peter was ever in Rome. Nothing in the New Testament would support that idea, especially given that Paul, who was clearly in Rome, was the apostle to the Gentiles, while Peter was the apostle to the Jews and clearly ministered to the Jews of Asia Minor, in particular (I Peter 1.1). The only conceivable Biblical support for this idea comes from I Peter 5.13 where he claims to be writing from "Babylon," which in fact had a Jewish community. Thus, Roman apologists are forced into the awkward position of claiming in this instance that "Babylon" means "Rome" when, I think, in this case, "Babylon" means "Babylon" (though in Revelations I agree that "Babylon" means "Rome"). 

As to archeological evidence, see Loraine Boettner, _Roman Catholicism_:



> Exhaustive research by archeologists has been made down through the centuries to find some inscription in the Catacombs and other ruins of ancient places in Rome that would indicate Peter at least visited Rome. But the only things found which gave any promise at all were some bones of uncertain origin. L.H. Lehmann, who was educated for the priesthood at the University for the Propogation of the Faith, in Rome, tells us of a lecture by a noted Roman archeologist, Professor Marucchi, given before his class, in which he said that no shred of evidence of Peter's having been in the Eternal City had ever been unearthed, and of another archeologist, Di Rossi, who declared that for forty years his greatest ambition had been to unearth in Rome some inscription which would verify the papal claim that the apostle Peter was actually in Rome, but that he was forced to admit that he had given up hope of success in his search. He had the promise of handsome rewards by the church if he succeeded. What he had dug up verified what the New Testament says about the formation of the Christian church in Rome, but remained absolutely silent regarding the claims of the bishops of Rome to be the successors of the apostle Peter (cf., _The Soul of a Priest_, p. 10).


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 14, 2005)

I would see Babylon as referring to Jerusalem in Revelation, but I hadn't considered Peter to be speaking figuratively in 1 Pet 5 before.. hmm...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 14, 2005)

Matthew Poole on I Peter 5.13:



> 13 The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.
> 
> _The church that is at Babylon_; Babylon in Chaldea, where it is most probable the apostle was at the writing of this Epistle; the Jews being very numerous in those parts, as having settled themselves there ever since the captivity, and Peter being an apostle of the circumcision, his work lay much thereabout. The papists would have Babylon here to be Rome, as Rev. xvii, and that Peter gives it that name rather than its own, because, being escaped out of prison at Jerusalem, Acts xii.12, 25, he would not have it known where he was. But how comes he, that had been so bold before, to be so timorous now? Did this become the head of the church, the vicar of Christ, and prince of the apostles? And is it probable that he should live twenty-five years at Rome, (as they pretend he did,) and yet not be known to be there? Wherever he was, he had Mark now with him, who is said to have died at Alexandria the eighth year of Nero, and Peter not till six years after. If Mark then did first constitute the church of Alexandria, and govern it (as they say he did) for many years, it will be hard to find him and Peter at Rome together. But if they will needs have Rome be meant by Babylon, let them enjoy their zeal, who rather than not find Peter's chair, would go to hell to seek it; and are more concerned to have Rome be the seat of Peter than the church of Christ.



See also Poole's comments on Revelation 17 as to the identity of Babylon, which he asserts with Matthew Henry and the vast majority of Puritans and Reformers, is Rome.


----------



## DTK (Aug 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> I had always been taught that there's no evidence that Peter went to Rome, much less became the first pope of Rome. From the scriptures, I don't see any evidence that he was at Rome. Does the historical evidence, outside of the scriptures, support the catholic claim of Peter being in Rome and being the leader of that church?



There is no scriptural evidence that Peter ever resided in Rome. Interestingly enough, If Peter was in Rome and founded there Church there, it is rather strange that the Apostle Paul in his epistle to the Romans omitts any reference to him, especially when he goes to great lengths in chapter 16 to express his greetings to and gratitude for many individual saints there by name. This is, of course, an argument from silence and ordinarily weak as such, but I do think the argument is strengthened by the fact that Paul does in chapter 16 greet so many individuals by name, and if Peter had been the bishop there it is strange that the Apostle should omit any mention of him.

As for the evidence from tradition, I tend to agree with Oscar Culmann's opinion that Peter did eventually make it to the city of Rome and died there as a Martyr. After treating all the arguments of which he was aware (pro & con) Cullmann says this in conclusion...


> "In summary of our entire historical section, to the end of which we now have come, we must say that during the life time of Peter he held a pre-eminent position among the disciples;...at a time which cannot be more closely determined but probably occurred at the end of his life, he came to Rome and there, after a very short work, died as a martyr under Nero. Oscar Cullmann, _Peter, Disciple-Apostle-Martyr: A Historical and Theological Study_ (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953), p. 152.


In the paragraph I cited above, Cullmann also states his belief that Peter was the leader of the Jerusalem Church during its first years, but I don't think that can be strictly verified by Scripture, and Acts 15 suggests that James was the head of the church in Jerusalem at the time of that council.

Many of the early church fathers suggest that Peter founded the church at Rome, but this is explicity denied by the testimony of the church father who came to be known to us in modern times as Ambrosiaster...


> *Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384):* "œIt is evident then that there were Jews living in Rome....in the time of the apostles. Some of these Jews, who had come to believe (in Christ), passed on to the Romans (the tradition) that they should acknowledge Christ and keep the law....One ought not to be angry with the Romans, but praise their faith, because without seeing any signs of miracles and without any of the apostles they came to embrace faith in Christ, though according to a Jewish rite" (ritu licet iudaico, a phrase found only in cod. K; _In ep. ad Romanos_, prol. 2; CSEL 81.1.5-6). Ambrosiaster speaks of the Gentile Christians of Rome, who were associated with the original Jewish converts of the Roman community. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., _Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series_ (New York: Doubleday, 1993), pp. 30-31. See also _In Epistolam Ad Romanos_, Prologus, PL 17:46.


I think it is interesting as well that the Roman scholar Joseph Fitzmyer makes the following comments concerning the tradition of Peter's stay in Rome...


> *Fitzmyer:* A more reliable tradition associated Paul with Peter as "œfounders" of the Roman community, not in the sense that they first brought Christian faith there, but because both of them eventually worked there and suffered martyrdom there (or in its immediate environs), and because their mortal remains were in possession of the Roman church (see Ignatius, Rom. 4.3; Irenaeus, _Adversus Haereses_ 3.1.1, 3.3.2 [SC 211.22-23, 32-33]). Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., _Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series_ (New York: Doubleday, 1993), p. 30.
> 
> *Fitzmyer:* In any case, Paul never hints in Romans that he knows that Peter has worked in Rome or founded the Christian church there before his planned visit (cf. 15:20-23). If he refers indirectly to Peter as among the "œsuperfine apostles" who worked in Corinth (2 Cor 11:4-5), he says nothing like that about Rome in this letter. Hence the beginnings of the Roman Christian community remain shrouded in mystery. Compare 1 Thess 3:2-5; 1 Cor 3:5-9; and Col 1:7 and 4:12-13 for more or less clear references to founding apostles of other locales. Hence there is no reason to think that Peter spent any major portion of time in Rome before Paul wrote his letter, or that he was the founder of the Roman church or the missionary who first brought Christianity to Rome. For it seems highly unlikely that Luke, if he knew that Peter had gone to Rome and evangelized that city, would have omitted all mention of it in Acts. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., _Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series_ (New York: Doubleday, 1993), p. 30.
> 
> *Fitzmyer* then goes on to state of the Church of Rome that "we know nothing of its evangelization by an apostle, even though a later tradition associated that with Mark the evangelist (Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 2.16.1)." Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., _Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series_ (New York: Doubleday, 1993), p. 30.


In his commentary on Romans, Moo makes this observation...


> *Douglas Moo:* The tradition that the church in Rome was founded by Peter (or Peter and Paul together) cannot be right. It is in this very letter that Paul enunciates the principle that he will "œnot build on another person´s foundation" (15:20). This makes it impossible to think that he would have written this letter, or planned the kind of visit he describes in 1:8-15, to a church that was founded by Peter. Nor is it likely that Peter could have been at Rome early enough to have founded the church there. Since the traditions we possess associate no other apostle with the church at Rome, the assessment of the fourth-century church father Ambrosiaster is probably correct: the Romans "œhave embraced the faith of Christ, albeit according to the Jewish rite, without seeing any sign of mighty works, or any of the apostles." (fn. PL 17:46). [Douglas Moo, _NICNT: The Epistle to the Romans_ (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), p. 4. For an extensive treatment of this question, see also Oscar Cullmann, _Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr_ (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), pp. 72-157].


According to Romans 15:23, the church had already been there for "œmany years." If this epistle was written by Paul around 57 AD (with a leeway of a year or two before or after this date), it can hardly be believed that it was planted there by the apostle Paul or Peter.

I do think that the historical evidence from tradition seems to place Peter in Rome toward the end of his life, and his death there as a martyr. But I do not believe there is a shred of evidence for his having founded the church there, let alone that he ever held the office of bishop there. The Roman Catholic arguments to the contrary, all their dogmatic insistence notwithstanding, fall far short by way of proof for their contentions ecclesially.

Blessings,
DTK

[Edited on 8-15-2005 by DTK]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 14, 2005)

Good info, Pastor King.


----------



## yeutter (Aug 14, 2005)

Even if Peter went to Rome it does not matter. He was not the Church planter there. The Church was established before he arrived. Hence he is not the first Bishop of Rome.
Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch. Hence, using popish logic, its See not Rome should be papal.


----------



## Peter (Aug 14, 2005)

"popish logic"


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Aug 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Abd_Yesua_alMasih_
> ...


Sorry I should have worded my question better. I was wondering if our worldview would actually have to change if we admitted that Peter went to Rome/founded the Church in Rome or other such charges were true.

While this is not historical proof I never did really doubt that Peter did die in Rome (I never really heard anyone speak differently) and I am inclined to agree with DTK on this issue.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 14, 2005)

I just preached on Rom 1:8-15 (tonight in fact). Paul's desire to go there, in particular, verse 11, in order to "impart some spiritual gift, to the end that you may be established" is to my mind exceptional evidence that the church in Rome was founded by no apostle, but was rather a delightful providence. The "signs of the apostles" had not been performed there by anyone, nor were there any (or many) there who had been so endowed elsewhere and later moved there. And this in an era when the presence of extraordinary gifts was certainly more widespread (if Acts is any indication). This is not a strict deficieny, of course, but is testimony that the church in Rome was more remarkable for what she did not have, than what she is supposed by some to have as a pedigree.


----------



## JKLeoPCA (Aug 15, 2005)

As a side note, I've always wanted to ask a RC about this.

If Peter was the first Pope, then what do they make of his authority and infallibility, being Paul had to correct him to his face about his eating with the Gentiles (Galatians 2:11-21)?


----------



## BobVigneault (Aug 15, 2005)

Everyone knows that Ignatius was the first pope and that was at Antioch. (j/k)

Hey John, as a former RC let me defend Peter on his decision to refrain from eating with gentiles. I really don't believe Peter was wimping out here. Peter understood justification as well as Paul but.....

Peter and Paul represent the twin but sometimes incompatible rudders of church history. Here's what I believe happened to Peter whose doctrine is otherwise sound. 

Peter's role in the early church was to put out fires. He was strong and respected and greatly qualified to do just that and there were plenty of fires. Greek widows were not being fed, false teachers and magicians were trying to grab some of the new movement. It took a Peter to quash and deal with these things.

Paul was a genious, the great explainer. Paul had the intellectual background and acumen to systematize the many emerging facets of the new covenant. Paul was a purist and passionate about orthodoxy.

In Jerusalem, there was a great persecution going on. Christians were dying for their confessions of Christ. Hundreds were being hunted down and imprisoned, enslaved or executed.

In Antioch, the church was growing and free to debate and discover and formulate the doctrines of the new covenant. It's in Antioch we find Peter the fireman, and Paul the deep thinker.

James sent some brothers from Jerusalem who brought word of the persecution being fired by the circumcision party. "Peter, our brothers and sisters are dying because you are doing away with our jewishness. Please consider the effect you're having on innocent lives."

How would Peter, who's role is to put out fires respond? Ok, for now, let's back off of this emphasis. If we can save lives, let's avoid eating with gentiles. 

Paul, the deep thinker has thought this through. Yes this would save lives in Jerusalem BUT this would also gut the very gospel itself. Both men had the same understanding of justification but Paul saw the deeper consequences of not defending this doctrine even if it mean't people would die.

Of course I'm speculating but I don't see the Peter of pentecost as being a wimp. The church later faced similar problems with apostates and re-baptism. Some solutions are just putting out fires and others go to the core of the gospel. We need both kinds of leaders but making them compatible is difficult and sometimes impossible.

That's my two cents. Blessings!


----------



## blhowes (Aug 15, 2005)

Thank-you for your responses. You confirmed what I thought and had been taught, though I wasn't aware that, late in his life, he probably visited and was martyred at Rome.

I asked my original question as I'm thinking through one of my objections to paedobaptism, that being the acceptance by reformed churches of the catholic baptism as a valid baptism. If I could in my mind make the connection between OT circumcision and NT baptism, the idea of the church baptizing believers and their children would make sense. What doesn't/wouldn't make sense is an unsaved priest baptizing children of unsaved people and those baptisms being considered valid. What makes even less sense is that the pope, who himself or his office is considered to be the (or an) antiChrist, could baptize children of unsaved people and the baptism be considered valid. 

Its been said by some that its valid because they used the 'trinitarian formula', yet it wouldn't be valid if, given extenuating circumstances, a born-again parent used those same words to baptize their child. The born-again parent doesn't have the authority, given by Christ, to baptize (which I agree with).

Anyway, that's the thinking that prompted my first question. And, in thinking about the church's authority, it doesn't matter one way or the other if Peter established the church at Rome. I think its safe to say that somebody with the proper authority originally established that church, it just wasn't Peter.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 15, 2005)

I looked in my Geneva Study Bible, the intro to 1 Peter, and it said that Peter is likely referring to Rome as Babylon, and that this has been the traditional interpretation since the second century. It says it is likely true because Mark was in Rome, and Peter is generally believed to have been martyred in Rome. This is a whole lot different than what I am reading in sources cited in this thread. 

Still, though, I find it hard to reconcile the name "Babylon" with the central authority of the Church. I don't see our churches named after Jezebel or Judas. Let me see, "Jereboam (or Ahab) Presbyterian Church of ...." Hmmm, just doesn't sound right.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 15, 2005)

The modern Geneva Study Bible and the 1599 Geneva Bible look at this issue (and many others) quite differently.

1599 Geneva Bible on I Peter 5.13:



> 1Pe 5:13
> 
> 5:13 {15} The [church that is] at {d} Babylon, elected together with [you], saluteth you; and [so doth] Marcus my son.
> 
> ...


----------

