# 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.

Date not assigned · Historical source

Source: Martyrs’ Mirror. Original heading: 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.



In this demonstration we shall forego the method
employed by Sebastian Frank, Gysius, and others,
who have written syllogistically upon this subject,
and shall confine ourselves solely to the express
testimony of (or, at least, plain inferences from)
Holy Scripture, upon which we propose to found
our arguments.

Reason.—First Argument.—When Paul drew
near the city of Rome, where he was to be arraigned
before Cesar, the brethren53 came out of the city to
meet him, as far as Appii Forum, and the Three
Taverns, whom, when Paul saw, he took courage.
Acts 28:15. But among these Peter is not once
mentioned, which would undoubtedly have been
the case, had he been with them and occupied the
episcopal throne at that place, as is pretended.

Second Argument.—When it came to pass, that
Paul was to give an account before the emperor for
the first time, he was forsaken by all, and no man
stood with him, so that he complained of it to Timothy.
2 Tim. 4:16. Now, if Peter had been at
Rome, he certainly would not have forsaken Paul,
whom he was wont to call his beloved brother,
2 Pet. 3:15; but would have stood by him with
counsel and actual assistance, according to his ability.
This, however did not happen; which clearly
shows that he was not there at that time; unless
some one might conclude, that he, who before had
forsaken his Lord and Savior (which was a matter
of much consequence), now probably also forsook
Paul, who was inferior.

To this may serve as reply: That Peter, at the
time he forsook Christ, was not filled with the gift
of the Holy Ghost, which was not poured upon the
apostles until after Christ’s ascension, Acts 2:1–3;
hence he could easily come to this fall; but now,
being filled with the Holy Ghost,54 it was quite
otherwise, so much so, that he and his fellow apostles
feared no suffering, not even death itself. Compare
Acts 4:19–21 with 5:40–42 and 12:3,4.
Also 1 Pet. 3:14 and 4:16.

Moreover, in Paul’s complaint to Timothy not a
word is mentioned as to Peter having forsaken him;
which, had it happened, would certainly, as a notable
matter, not have been passed over in silence;
more especially, as he mentions some of those who
forsook him, by name, as, Demas, Alexander the
coppersmith, etc.

Third Argument.—When Paul was confined in
prison at Rome, and bound in chains, he commended
Onesiphorus, because he had visited him,
and was not ashamed of his chain; without mentioning
anything about others, saying: “The Lord give
mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft
refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain.
2 Tim. 1:16.

But why does he not commend Peter as having
visited him in his bonds? or, if Peter was there and
did not do so, but was ashamed of his chain, why
does he not complain, that so great a man, who
ought to have had been a leader unto others, was so
negligent therein?

Doubtless, if Peter had been in the city at that
time, and visited, or not visited, him in prison, Paul
would not have passed it over in utter silence, without
commending or complaining of it.

Fourth Argument.—When many had departed
from Paul, while he was in prison, he made mention
of one who had remained by, or with, him, namely,
in the city of Rome. He calls him Luke, and says:
Only Luke is with (or by) me. 2 Tim. 4:11. It
follows, therefore, that at the time when Paul wrote
this, Peter was not at Rome, or it could not have
been that only Luke was with him.

Fifth Argument.—A little further on from the
above mentioned words, Paul requests of Timothy,
that when he came to him, he should bring Mark
with him, since the same would be very profitable to
him for his ministry, saying: Take Mark, and bring
him with thee (when thou comest): for he is profitable
to me for the ministry. 2 Tim. 4:11.

Now, if Peter was in Rome at that time, why was
Paul under the necessity of sending for Mark for the
ministry? or, if he was not there, why did he not
48send for Peter? Certainly, if he had sent for him, he
would, unless prevented by some important cause,
not have refused to come: and then it could be concluded,
that Peter was there a considerable time,
since, as we find, they both died considerable time
afterwards.

But it does not appear that Paul sent for him;
hence, it cannot be concluded, that he came in answer
to his summons; and even if he had come at
that time, his stay there could not have lasted several
years, much less twenty-five years, as the
papists say, since death overtook him as well as
Paul, as has been shown in its proper place. The
preparation, however, of this whole argument is
unnecessary and superfluous.

Sixth Argument.—Paul wrote various epistles
from his prison at Rome to the believers; as to the
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, to
Timothy, Philemon, etc., in which he puts various
salutations from believers of the church at Rome, as
also, in the beginning of the same makes mention
sometimes of his fellow laborers; but he never mentions
Peter. We will show here the manner in
which this is done.

In the beginning of the epistle to the Philippians
he writes these words: Paul and Timotheus, the
servants of Jesus Christ. Now, why does he not
add here: and Simon Peter?

Nearly in the same manner he commences the
epistle to the Colossians, saying: “Paul, an apostle
of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus,
our brother.” Why does he not add: and Peter,
the chief apostle?

In concluding these epistles he adds the salutations
of the saints who were with him. To the
Philippians he writes: “All the saints salute you . . .
chiefly they that are of Cæsar’s household.” Phil.
4:21,22. To the Colossians he addresses these
words: “Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of
Christ, saluteth you.” Col. 4:12. Also: Luke, the
physician, greets you. Verse 14.

Peter is not mentioned here at all, which, certainly,
had he been there, would have been highly
necessary.

This same manner he followed in all the other
epistles which he wrote from Rome. To Timothy
he says: “Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and
Linus, and Claudia.” 2 Tim. 4:21.

To Philemon: “There salute thee Epaphras . . .
Marcus, Aristarchus.” Phil. 23,24.

There might be much said upon this subject, but
it would all amount to this: that it would be a
strange thing, if Peter was at Rome, when Paul
wrote his epistles from the Roman prison, that the
latter did never mention in these epistles a salutation
from Peter (which, as has been shown, he did not);
seeing he mentions salutations from different leaders
and members of the Roman church, whom he calls
by name: hence it is quite reasonable to conclude,
that Peter was not there during that time.

Besides the six arguments mentioned, proving
that during the time Paul was imprisoned under
Nero, Peter was not at Rome, as far as the testimony
of Holy Scriptures go in regard to this, there
follow various circumstances showing (by like virtue
of Holy Scripture), that also during the time Paul
was out of prison, Peter was not to be found in this
city.

First Circumstance.—Here is to be considered,
why Paul wrote an epistle to the Roman church, as
well for the confirmation of the Christian faith, as
for stirring up in the moral virtues (which epistle is
still in existence), if Peter was there at that time,
and had the charge of said church? or, if it was necessary
for important reasons, that he should write to
them, why he did not send this epistle to Peter as
their leader, like he did to Timothy, the teacher of
the Ephesian church; and to Titus, the teacher of
the church in the Island of Crete?

Or, at least, if we look at the contents of this epistle,
we may well consider, why he did not address
a salutation to him, or once mention him by name?
seeing he filled nearly a whole chapter with the
names of those whom he salutes at Rome: as,
Aquila with his wife Priscilla, Epenetus and Mary,
together with Andronicus, Junia, Amplias, Urbanus,
Apelles, Herodion, those of the household of Narcissus
(the women), Tryphena and Tryphosa, Persis,
Rufus, Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas,
Philologus, Nereus, etc., Rom. 16 throughout;
without mentioning in any way whatever the person
or name of Peter; from which there may be concluded
again with good reason, that which has been
concluded before from the account of the salutations
which Paul wrote while in prison at Rome, namely,
that Peter was not in this city at that time?

Second Circumstance.—When it afterwards happened
that Paul, having traveled through Arabia
and the country of Damascus, returned after three
years, with a particular desire to see Peter; he did
not seek him at Rome, but at Jerusalem; where,
when he had found him, he abode with him fifteen
days; and then departed again into the regions of
Syria and Cilicia. Gal. 1:17–21.

Third Circumstance.—When fourteen more years
had elapsed, namely, those spent by Paul in his
Syrian and Cilician journey, where was Peter to be
found? Certainly not at Rome, but at Antioch;
for there Paul came to him, and rebuked him, because
he had eaten with the Gentiles in the presence
of the Jews. Compare Gal. 2:1 with verses 11,12.

Fourth Circumstance.—When some came down
from Judea, and troubled the brethren, saying that,
unless they were circumcised after the manner of
Moses, they could not be saved; and Paul, Barnabas,
and other pious men were sent to the apostles
and elders, to consult about the matter; Peter as
well as the others to whom they were sent, was
found at Jerusalem. Acts 15:1–7.

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.





---

Page: http://history.truechristian.church/stories/mm-various-arguments-from-the-holy-scriptures-showing-that-peter-was-not-at-rome-during-the-time-paul-was-there-except-as-h/

[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.&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.%0A%0APage%3A+http%3A%2F%2Fhistory.truechristian.church%2Fstories%2Fmm-various-arguments-from-the-holy-scriptures-showing-that-peter-was-not-at-rome-during-the-time-paul-was-there-except-as-h%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%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.)