# Various Arguments From The Holy Scriptures, Showing That Peter Was Not At Rome During The Time Paul Was There, Except (As Has Been Explained Above) At The Close Of His Life. · Page 3 of 3 [Previous page: VARIOUS ARGUMENTS FROM THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, SHOWING THAT PETER WAS NOT AT ROME DURING THE TIME PAUL WAS THERE, EXCEPT (AS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED ABOVE) AT THE CLOSE OF HIS LIFE.](/en/stories/mm-various-arguments-from-the-holy-scriptures-showing-that-peter-was-not-at-rome-during-the-time-paul-was-there-except-as-h/part-2/) · [Book contents](/en/sources/martyrs-mirror/#book-contents) · [Next page: DISCORDANCE OF PAPISTIC WRITERS. 1. WHETHER PETER WAS AT ROME. 2. HOW LONG HE WAS BISHOP THERE. 3. WHO FOLLOWED HIM.](/en/stories/mm-discordance-of-papistic-writers-1-whether-peter-was-at-rome-2-how-long-he-was-bishop-there-3-who-followed-him/) Fifth Circumstance.—Gal. 2:7, we read, that the uncircumcision (that is, the Gentiles) was committed to Paul, but the circumcision (that is, the Jews or the Jewish nation) to Peter; also, verse 9, that Peter (there called Cephas) together with James and John gave to Paul and Barnabas the right hand and agreed, that these should go unto the heathen, but they unto the circumcision (the Jews); namely, to preach the Gospel unto them. It is, therefore, a settled fact, that Peter was properly a teacher of the Jews (after this agreement was 49 made), and not of the Gentiles. But if he had taught among the Romans, who were Gentiles by nature, he would have gone altogether beyond his engagement and promise; which certainly is not to be supposed of so great and eminent a man as Peter was at that time. Sixth Circumstance.—From the two epistles of Peter, especially from the words, 1 Pet. 1:1, it evidently appears, that he preached to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (namely those who were scattered there from the twelve tribes of Israel, according to the statement of James, chap. 1:1); for which preaching, since these countries are very far, some even a hundred and more leagues apart, several years were required, in order to travel through them; during which time Peter apparently could not be there and at Rome at once; this is incontrovertible. Seventh Circumstance.—At the end of the first epistle of Peter, namely 1 Pet. 5:13, are these words: “The church that is at Babylon, elected . . . saluteth you.” How could Peter send a salutation from the church at Babylon, unless he was with it in Babylon at that time? But if he was in Babylon, he was not at Rome, unless he had two bodies; of which we do not read anything, nor have we any reason to believe it. Eighth Circumstance.—Those who hold that Peter was bishop at Rome, make no distinction between the words apostle, or messenger, and bishop, or overseer; yet there always has been a marked difference between the office of an apostle and that of a bishop. The office of an apostle was to travel from one country to another, yea, through the whole world, and preach the Gospel to those who had not yet heard it; without being bound to any particular place or church, as appears from Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15. On the other hand, the office of a bishop or overseer was to watch over, care for, feed and govern, as a shepherd his flock, a particular church, unto which the Gospel had been already preached, and which had accepted faith and the sign of holy baptism. Compare Acts 20:28 with 1 Tim. 3:1–5; Tit. 1:5–7. Now, it is a fact, that properly not the latter, but the former office was enjoined upon Peter, for he gives himself the first mentioned name—apostle (see 1 Pet. 1:1 and 2 Pet. 1:1); for which purpose Christ himself had chosen him, Luke 6:13,14, and sent him out, as can plainly be seen in the last chapter of Matthew and of Mark. How could it be then, that Peter sat as bishop of the church in the city of Rome? and, what is still more—for a considerable number of years! unless it be said that Peter abandoned his charge, and accepted another office and ministry than the one to which he was called; which it would be difficult to prove, since nothing is mentioned of it in Holy Writ. Further Remarks on the foregoing circumstances—If one should confine himself solely to the testimony of the holy Scriptures, not accepting anything else as worthy of belief, it could in no wise be shown that Peter was ever at Rome; but, since the holy Scriptures do not relate all that has happened, the testimony of some accepted authors of that time may be recognized as credible, as far as their testimony is not contrary to what is expressed in holy Scripture. We have shown from the apostolic writings, that during the time Paul wrote his epistles in the prison at Rome, and also during the whole period that he (Peter) was preaching in foreign countries, Peter was not in Rome, but in Jerusalem, Antioch, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and in other places where the Jews were scattered. This we have plainly shown, first by six arguments, and then by eight circumstances, derived from the holy Scriptures. But as to where Peter was, or how he died, after Paul wrote his last epistle from Rome, the Scriptures are silent. Hence the testimony of those writers whom we have just mentioned cannot well be contradicted; who maintain, that Peter shortly before his death came to Rome, and there laid down his life for the doctrine of the Evangelical truth; without mentioning anything there about his bishopric, much less, popedom. ## Original source [Read this passage on Project Gutenberg](https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/65855/pg65855-images.html#Page_49) [Edition details](https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/65855) [Previous page: VARIOUS ARGUMENTS FROM THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, SHOWING THAT PETER WAS NOT AT ROME DURING THE TIME PAUL WAS THERE, EXCEPT (AS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED ABOVE) AT THE CLOSE OF HIS LIFE.](/en/stories/mm-various-arguments-from-the-holy-scriptures-showing-that-peter-was-not-at-rome-during-the-time-paul-was-there-except-as-h/part-2/) · [Book contents](/en/sources/martyrs-mirror/#book-contents) · [Next page: DISCORDANCE OF PAPISTIC WRITERS. 1. WHETHER PETER WAS AT ROME. 2. HOW LONG HE WAS BISHOP THERE. 3. WHO FOLLOWED HIM.](/en/stories/mm-discordance-of-papistic-writers-1-whether-peter-was-at-rome-2-how-long-he-was-bishop-there-3-who-followed-him/) --- Page: https://history.truechristian.church/en/stories/mm-various-arguments-from-the-holy-scriptures-showing-that-peter-was-not-at-rome-during-the-time-paul-was-there-except-as-h/part-3/ [Contribute a correction or addition](https://github.com/trueChristian/history.truechristian.church/issues/new?title=Correction%3A+Various+Arguments+From+The+Holy+Scriptures%2C+Showing+That+Peter+Was+Not+At+Rome+During+The+Time+Paul+Was+There%2C+Except+%28As+Has+Been+Explained+Above%29+At+The+Close+Of+His+Life.+%C2%B7+Page+3+of+3&body=%23%23+Page+or+topic%0AVarious+Arguments+From+The+Holy+Scriptures%2C+Showing+That+Peter+Was+Not+At+Rome+During+The+Time+Paul+Was+There%2C+Except+%28As+Has+Been+Explained+Above%29+At+The+Close+Of+His+Life.+%C2%B7+Page+3+of+3%0A%0APage%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fhistory.truechristian.church%2Fen%2Fstories%2Fmm-various-arguments-from-the-holy-scriptures-showing-that-peter-was-not-at-rome-during-the-time-paul-was-there-except-as-h%2Fpart-3%2F%0A%0ARecord%3A+mm-various-arguments-from-the-holy-scriptures-showing-that-peter-was-not-at-rome-during-the-time-paul-was-there-except-as-h--b00053-o000000%0A%0A%23%23+Correction+or+addition%0A%0A%0A%0A%23%23+Sources+and+evidence%0APlease+include+book%2Fpage+references%2C+archive+links%2C+or+first-hand+documentation.%0A%0A%0A%0A%23%23+Image+credit+%28if+applicable%29%0ACreator%2C+source%2C+and+permission+or+public-domain+basis.%0A%0A%0A%0ASubmitted+for+review%3B+this+issue+does+not+publish+changes+automatically.)