We, therefore, who are called and are Christians, do not believe in Peter, but in Him whom Peter believed,—being edified by Peter’s sermons about Christ, not poisoned by his incantations; and not deceived by his enchantments, but aided by his good deeds. Christ Himself, who was Peter’s Master in the doctrine which leads to eternal life, is our Master too. –Augustine (p292)
Who was Peter?
Peter was a disciple of Jesus. He was informed of the person of Jesus by his brother Andrew. Here is the record of Jesus first meeting Peter:
One of the two who heard John speak and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He found first his own brother Simon and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which translated means Christ). He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter). (John 1:40-42)
Later, Peter became the head of the disciples and took the lead in the gentile mission. Paul calls him one of the pillars of the early church. (Galatians 2:9)
Why did Jesus give him the name Cephas?
This name means rock and it signifies the stability and strength that Peter would bring to the church. (Matthew 16:18) Unfortunately, Peter often failed to live up to his name:
- Jesus had to give him a sharp rebuke (Matthew 16:22–23; Mark 8:32–33);
- Peter fell asleep in the garden of Gethsamene when he should have been watching (Matthew 26:40; Mark 14:37);
- In a fit of anger, Peter attacked Malchus with the sword (Mark 14:47; John 18:10–11);
- Peter also denied that he knew Jesus (Matthew 26:69–75; Mark 14:66–72; Luke 22:55–61; John 18:15–27);
In spite of all this, we see Jesus bringing Peter back and putting him back in place as the leader of the apostles. (John 21:15-17)
How are we to understand Jesus making Peter the rock on which He would build His church?
See here.
What did Peter write?
Peter wrote two letters which are included in the New Testament.
Rome
Did Peter ever go to the city of Rome?
There are three questions here:
- was Peter ever at Rome?
- did Peter found the church at Rome?
- was Peter the first bishop of the church at Rome?
Start with the first question.
It is likely that Peter was at Rome and was executed there by the Roman authorities in the mid 60s. There is good reason to believe that 1 Peter 5:13 mentions this. The closing of this letter is:
Through Silvanus, our faithful brother (for so I regard him), I have written to you briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand firm in it! She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings, and so does my son, Mark. Greet one another with a kiss of love. Peace be to you all who are in Christ. (1 Peter 5:12-14)
The thought is that “in Babylon” means in Rome as in Revelation 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21. Many scholars argue that this is not a reference to Rome at all but a metaphor for all the opposition against the kingdom of God. Alford says (p128) there is no reason to doubt that Peter wrote this letter from the city of Babylon on the Euphrates. Still a reference to Rome is the best explanation.
What is the evidence against Peter’s presence in Rome?
Jackson suggests (p266) that if Peter had gone to Rome, then Paul would certainly have mentioned it in his letters. Paul was very earnest to bring the gospel where others had never been (Romans 15:20-21); and therefore, he would not have gone to Rome if Peter was already there. Zahn writes (p160):
…the silence of Paul concerning contemporaneous work in Rome on the part of Peter in the letters of the first Roman captivity, especially in passages like Colossians 4:10 and Philippians 1:14–18, would be inexplicable if Peter were preaching there at the time. It is even more inconceivable that Peter, in a letter to the Churches in Asia Minor founded by Paul and his helpers, should send greetings from the Roman Church and from Mark, and say nothing about Paul, if Paul were living and working in the same community. Even assuming that the letter was written shortly after the death of Paul, Peter’s entire silence regarding him could not be explained as due to tender regard for the Christians of Asia Minor, who were in so much need of comfort in other respects, but would have to be regarded as an extremely unnatural thing, no matter whether the readers learned of the apostle’s death shortly before receiving Peter’s letter, or were informed of it for the first time by the person who brought the same.
The answer to this is that Peter was not in Rome when Paul was writing his letters. He would have come to Rome in the mid 60s. Farrar writes (p77):
If he was ever at Rome at all, which we hold to be almost certain, from the unanimity of the tradition, it could only have been very briefly before his martyrdom. And this is, in fact, the assertion of Lactantius4 (330ad), who says that he first came to Rome in Nero’s reign; and of Origen (254ad), who says that he arrived there at the close of his life;
What do the early church fathers say about Peter being in Rome?
- Clement (35-99ad) writes (p11) of Peter’s martyrdom but does not say where it happened. Clement, however, was the bishop of Rome. If Peter was martyred in Rome, he surely would have known of it. See Jackson p261.
- Ignatius denies (p75) that he issued commands as Peter and Paul did, but he says nothing more about them.
- Irenaeus says (p261) that Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome.
Peter & the Founding of the Roman Church
Did Peter and Paul found the church at Rome?
First, we know that there were Jews from Rome in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost and that these Jews were converted to Christ. Second, we know that Paul had yet been converted (Acts 9:1), and Peter had not yet come to embrace the gentile mission. (Acts 10:34-35) Therefore, Peter did not found the church at Rome. The founding of the Roman church was by these Jewish Christians who took their faith back with them to Rome and began to worship there. Peter did not arrive in Rome until decades after it had been founded.
Peter the First Roman Bishop
Is there any evidence that Peter was the first bishop of the church at Rome?
No. First, Peter was in Rome for such a brief time that he could not have served as bishop even though, while Peter was in Rome, he certainly would have had a tremendous influence over the Roman Christians. Second, when Peter arrived at Rome in the mid 60s, the Christian churches had not yet become episcopal churches with a bishop as the head of the church. See Schaff on Ignatius §45; Irenaeus & Tertullian §46; Cyprian §47; Mosheim p120. Raymond Brown says the claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome was not made until the third century. (Brown, Antioch & Rome, 98) Eusebius was the first church father to give support to this idea of Peter being the bishop of the Roman church.
What does Eusebius say about this?
Eusebius (260-340ad) states (see chp 14) that Peter went to Rome and quarreled with Simon Magus:
1 THE evil power, who hates all that is good and plots against the salvation of men, constituted Simon at that time the father and author of such wickedness, as if to make him a mighty antagonist of the great, inspired apostles of our Savior.
2 For that divine and celestial grace which co-operates with its ministers, by their appearance and presence, quickly extinguished the kindled flame of evil, and humbled and cast down through them “every high thing that exalted itself against the knowledge of God.”
3 Wherefore neither the conspiracy of Simon nor that of any of the others who arose at that period could accomplish anything in those apostolic times. For everything was conquered and subdued by the splendors of the truth and by the divine word itself which had but lately begun to shine from heaven upon men, and which was then flourishing upon earth, and dwelling in the apostles themselves.
4 Immediately the above-mentioned impostor was smitten in the eyes of his mind by a divine and miraculous flash, and after the evil deeds done by him had been first detected by the apostle Peter in Judea, he fled and made a great journey across the sea from the East to the West, thinking that only thus could he live according to his mind.
5 And coming to the city of Rome, by the mighty co-operation of that power which was lying in wait there, he was in a short time so successful in his undertaking that those who dwelt there honored him as a god by the erection of a statue.
6 But this did not last long. For immediately, during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to Rome against this great corrupter of life. He like a noble commander of God, clad in divine armor, carried the costly merchandise of the light of the understanding from the East to those who dwelt in the West, proclaiming the light itself, and the word which brings salvation to souls, and preaching the kingdom of heaven.
Eusebius goes on to note (see chp 15) that Peter’s hearers in Rome requested from him a written account of his doctrine and teachings. This too shows that Peter was in Rome.
What about Jerome?
Jerome (347-420ad) also believed (p361) that Peter was the bishop of Rome for twenty-five years. This is clearly false.
Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion—the believers in circumcision, in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia—pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to over-throw Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord. He wrote two epistles which are called Catholic, the second of which, on account of its difference from the first in style, is considered by many not to be by him. Then too the Gospel according to Mark, who was his disciple and interpreter, is ascribed to him. On the other hand, the books, of which one is entitled his Acts, another his Gospel, a third his Preaching, a fourth his Revelation, a fifth his “Judgment” are rejected as apocryphal. Buried at Rome in the Vatican near the triumphal way he is venerated by the whole world.
What is the Roman Catholic position on this?
The more traditional Roman Catholics hold to something like this (p570):
Until 37ad, Peter stood at the head of the church that was forming at Jerusalem and in the region around. But in that year he left Jerusalem and went to Antioch, where he founded a church, and for seven years presided over it as a bishop. After this period, and in the second year of the reign of Claudius, 42ad, he journeyed to Rome, where he vanquished Simon Magus, preached the gospel, founded a church, and placed himself at the head of it as its bishop. As such he continued till 50ad, when Claudius banished the Jews from Rome. Peter was then obliged to flee, and he betook himself to Palestine and Jerusalem, where in 51ad, he held and presided over the first council on the occasion of the controversy respecting the circumcision of the Gentile Christians. Thence he went to Antioch. During this time the emperor Claudius died, and Peter now returned through Asia Minor, where he founded numerous churches, and across Sicily and Lower Italy to Rome, which he reached under Nero’s reign, and re-occupied his see. From Rome he made many apostolic journeys into the countries of the West: to Gaul, and Britain, and even to Spain and Africa, and everywhere founded churches to which he assigned bishops from among his disciples. Finally he was put to death, together with Paul, at Rome, and there buried, under the reign of Nero, 65ad (66, 67, 69). Before his death he appointed Linus his successor as bishop of Rome and as the heir of his primacy, which in this way he transmitted to the Roman bishops.
Fouard defends (p407) Peter’s 25 year pontificate. Farrar writes (p77) that the Roman Catholic historians Valesius, Pagi, Baluz, Hug, Klee, Döllinger, Waterworth, and Allnatt have rejected it.
What can be said about this idea?
Schaff writes (p251) that it is extremely doubtful that Peter was in Rome before the year 63 based on the fact that Paul says nothing about this in his letters. Why would Paul have written his letter to Rome (57ad) if he knew that Peter was already there? or had planted a church there especially in light of what he writes in Romans 15:20.
Peter’s Ministry
Say more about Peter’s ministry in the church.
After the ascension of Jesus, we must assume that the disciples were in a state of great anxiety and distress. Yet, here we see Peter in his role as the rock of the church.
- He calls the church together, stands up, and directs the process of choosing a replacement for Judas. (Acts 1:15-26)
- In Acts 2, the gates of hell make an assault against the new community. Peter stands up, with the other apostles, and defends them. (Acts 2:14) When the crowd is duly convicted of their sin, they appeal in their distress to Peter and the other apostles. (Acts 2:37) Peter takes the keys and opens the door of the kingdom of heaven: “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)
- In the next chapter, we read of a lame man who the devils of hell had in their grasp. Peter breaks their power and claims the man for Christ by commanding the man to get up and walk. (Acts 3:6-7, 16)
- When all the people heard of this healing and came rushing to see what had happened, Peter again took the keys and opened the door of the kingdom to them. (Acts 3:19-20)
- When the gates of hell made another assault on the community, Peter was right there again. He challenges the Jewish leadership to confront the obvious fact that this man had been healed by the powerful Name of Jesus. (Acts 4:10) Then he takes the keys and declares: “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other Name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12) When the Jewish leadership commanded Peter and John to stop preaching the gospel, both of them resisted this attack of the gates of hell by declaring that they would obey God rather than men. (Acts 4:19; 5:29)
- Another assault from hell is repelled by Peter when he exposes the lie of Ananias and Sapphira. (Acts 5:3) When the sick people were brought into the streets, it was Peter’s shadow which healed them. When the apostles were arrested, it is Peter who stands like a rock against all opposition. (Acts 5:29-32) The apostles would have been struck dead if it weren’t for the testimony of Gamaliel. (Acts 5:34)
- Simon the Sorcerer represented another attack of hell. Peter exercised the authority to bind and loose by denying Simon the power of giving the Holy Spirit. “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! You have no part or portion in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that, if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bondage of iniquity.” (Acts 8:20-23)
- In Acts 9, Peter heals Aeneas and Tabitha.
- The greatest act of Peter’s ministry came when he received God’s mandate to take the keys of the kingdom and to swing the door open for the gentiles. “What God has cleansed,” God told Peter, “No longer consider unholy.” (Acts 10:15) Then, Peter saw with his own eyes, in the house of Cornelius, that the Holy Spirit had come upon the gentiles. In amazement, he orders them to be baptized as full participants of all the saving mercies of God! (Acts 10:44-48)
- When he returns to Jerusalem, the anxious Jewish believers demand a full account of his actions. Peter stands firm like a rock and reasons with them: If God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” (Acts 11:17) When the Jerusalem believers hear this, they are convinced. “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.” (Acts 11:18)
- That Peter was the rock of the church is clear in Acts 12 where he is arrested, but God works a miracle and Peter walks out of the prison a free man. (Acts 12:11)
- Finally, Peter stands and addresses the Jerusalem council. After the others had spoken, he, like a rock, denounces the idea that the gentile believers would be required to follow all the laws of Moses when they became a Christian. (Acts 15:7) When James speaks, he references the ministry of Peter as a reason why they should adopt Peter’s position. (Acts 15:14)
What else can be said about Peter?
Peter was married. (Matthew 8:14; 1 Corinthians 9:5; 1 Peter 5:13)
What was Peter’s role at the council of Jerusalem?
See here.