For many in the Roman Catholic Church — and even groups like Witness Lee’s Local Church — the belief that Peter ruled the church from Rome serves as a foundational idea for justifying centralized authority and hierarchical church government. While the Local Church does not hold to a papacy, it draws upon the notion of Peter’s leadership role in Rome to support its own concepts of delegated spiritual authority and church order. If this assumption is scripturally unfounded, then the structures and doctrines built upon it must be reexamined in light of God’s Word. This study seeks to carefully trace Peter’s steps in the biblical record — not tradition — to uncover the truth.
Many religious traditions, particularly Roman Catholicism, hold to the claim that the Apostle Peter ruled the church in Rome for twenty-five years and was its first bishop. Yet when we follow Peter’s actual movements in the New Testament, a very different picture emerges — one that contradicts that tradition entirely.
This study is not based on speculation, tradition, or archaeological guesswork. It is a simple appeal to the Word of God — letting the Bible speak for itself. By tracing Peter’s movements year-by-year and passage-by-passage, we will see clearly where Peter was — and just as importantly, where he was not.
This approach is rare in a world filled with religious tradition and man-made claims. While others rely on second-century writings, church fathers, or historical assumptions, we turn to the inspired Scriptures — the perfect record of truth. And when the biblical testimony is laid out plainly, the results are unmistakable: Peter was never the bishop of Rome — he was the apostle to the Jews, faithfully serving where God placed him.
This study will walk carefully through the biblical record (KJV only), along with verified historical timelines, to show where Peter really was — and just as importantly, where he wasn’t.
33 A.D. — Pentecost: Peter in Jerusalem
“But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice…” — Acts 2:14 Peter was in Jerusalem at the founding of the Church on the Day of Pentecost, where he preached powerfully to thousands.
36–40 A.D. — Paul’s Conversion and Peter’s Location
Paul was converted on the road to Damascus (Acts 9). The time of his conversion is narrowed by the mention of King Aretas in 2 Corinthians 11:32, who ruled until 40 A.D.
Meanwhile, Peter is still ministering in Judea. He and James are imprisoned by Herod (Acts 12:1–2), but Peter is miraculously delivered and restored to the church (Acts 12:5–17). This occurred shortly before Herod’s death (39 A.D.).
44–48 A.D. — The Famine Under Claudius
“…which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.” — Acts 11:28 Peter is still accounted for in Jerusalem during this time. Historical writers such as Josephus, Suetonius, and Tacitus confirm this famine.
49–53 A.D. — The Jerusalem Council and Peter’s Role
Shortly after the Jerusalem Council, Peter traveled to Antioch, where he was confronted by Paul over a matter of hypocrisy regarding the Gentile believers:
“But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” — Galatians 2:11
This interaction shows that Peter was still moving among the churches in the East, ministering in person — not ruling from a distant seat in Rome. His conduct in Antioch had a serious impact on the Gentile believers and even led Barnabas astray (Gal. 2:13). Paul’s correction of Peter took place publicly, and the account places Peter clearly in the East, not in Rome during these key years. In Galatians 2:1-10, Paul recounts that seventeen years after his conversion, he went up to Jerusalem by revelation. There he met with James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who were regarded as “pillars.” This places Peter squarely in Jerusalem during this critical time in church history.
The leadership of the church in Jerusalem during this period rested not with Peter, but with James, the Lord’s brother. This is confirmed in Acts 12:17, Acts 15:13-21, and Acts 21:18, as well as by Josephus in Antiquities XX.9.1, where James’ martyrdom is recorded — but Peter is never mentioned.
53–58 A.D. — Peter Still Not in Rome
Paul’s second missionary journey (Acts 18) brings him to Corinth. In Romans 16, written around 58 A.D. from Corinth, Paul greets 35 different individuals in the church at Rome — but does not mention Peter. If Peter were the bishop of Rome, this would be an inconceivable omission.
“I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.” — Romans 1:8
Paul plainly says he strives to preach the gospel “not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation” (Romans 15:20). If Peter had been in Rome for years prior, Paul’s statement would be meaningless.
54–60 A.D. — Peter’s Ministry to the Circumcision
According to 1 Corinthians 9:5, Peter traveled with his wife. Following the Jerusalem Council, Peter likely undertook extended missionary journeys throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia — regions named in 1 Peter 1:1. This would have required years of labor and places him in the East — not in Rome.
Peter’s assignment was to the circumcision (Galatians 2:7-9), and the strong Jewish presence in these regions supports this calling.
60–63 A.D. — Paul’s First Roman Imprisonment
During this time, Paul wrote:
- Colossians (Col. 1:1, 4:10–14)
- Ephesians (Eph. 6:21)
- Philemon (Philemon 1:1, 23–24)
- Philippians (Phil. 1:1; 2:25–30; 4:22)
In these letters, Paul mentions a host of believers — Timothy, Luke, Demas, Aristarchus, Epaphras, Mark, Justus — but never Peter. If Peter were in Rome, the silence is inexplicable.
65 A.D. — Where Was Peter?
“The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.” — 1 Peter 5:13
Peter explicitly states he is writing from Babylon — and there is no reason to interpret this as symbolic. Symbolic use of “Babylon” to refer to Rome does not appear until after 96 A.D. in the book of Revelation (Rev 17:5). There was a thriving Jewish community in literal Babylon, and Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcision (Gal. 2:7).
67 A.D. — Paul’s Final Letter: Still No Peter
“Only Luke is with me.” — 2 Timothy 4:11
In Paul’s final letter before his death, he names Demas, Crescens, Titus, Tychicus, and others. He begs Timothy to come quickly. He even says:
“This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me…” — 2 Tim. 1:15
If Peter were in Rome, he abandoned Paul or was entirely absent from the record. Paul names no one resembling a ruling apostle or pope.
The Testimony of Josephus
The most prominent historian in the Roman Empire during the apostolic era was Josephus (37–101 A.D.). His writings confirm James as the leader of the Jerusalem church (Antiquities XX.9.1). But he never once mentions Peter — let alone any church rulership in Rome. The silence is deafening.
The Real Peter: Apostle, Not Pope
Peter himself never claims primacy over the Church.
“Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house…” — 1 Peter 2:5
“The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder… Feed the flock of God.” — 1 Peter 5:1–2
He calls himself an elder — not the elder, not pope, not ruler of Rome. He is one stone among many, part of the foundation, not the cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20).
Conclusion: The Witness of Scripture Stands
There is no biblical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome.
- He is consistently accounted for in Judea, Antioch, Asia Minor, and Babylon.
- He never writes to, from, or about Rome.
- He is never mentioned by Paul as being in Rome.
- The structure of the Church in Rome (as seen in Romans 16) shows no sign of Peter’s influence or authority.
The Roman Catholic claim that Peter ruled the church in Rome from 42 to 67 A.D. not only lacks support — it would require us to believe that the entire biblical record, particularly the writings of Paul, ignored or omitted one of the most significant facts in church history. If Peter was ruling in Rome during those years, the New Testament is not reliable. But it is reliable — and it does not place Peter there.
The idea that Peter ruled the Church from Rome from 42 to 67 A.D. has no support in inspired Scripture. In fact, it contradicts the inspired witness.
“Let God be true, but every man a liar.” — Romans 3:4
Excellent! Thank you for your thoroughness and references of year chronology. This clearly shows either the New Testament scriptures or Catholic traditions are correct; they both cannot be, because they contradict each other.
I choose to believe the New Testament, not the traditions of man.
Thank you, brother/sister — well said. That’s exactly the point: truth is not a matter of blending contradictions. Either the Word of God is our authority, or we are left with the shifting sands of tradition and religious myth. I’m grateful the Lord has given you eyes to see it. The Bereans were noble because they searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so (Acts 17:11). We must do the same in this generation — especially when so many are trading the truth for sentiment, symbolism, or systems. Keep standing on the unshakable ground of God’s Word!
I would offer a differing thought on Peter’s letter from Babylon. Jesus time and time again, among others, mentions how Jerusalem is the place where the fathers killed all the prophets, and it was in that city, in The Revelation of Jesus Christ, that is referred to as Babylon… in THAT great city is found all the blood of the prophets.
“Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Hagar.
For this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.”
That great city was called, spiritually, Sodom and Egypt, and Jesus, who Moses spoke about being another prophet like him, would lead the true children of God out of Jerusalem/Babylon/Sodom. That city was about to get plagues like Egypt (detailed in the Rev. of Jesus) and destroyed with fire like Sodom.
So I believe Peter, when he said he was in Babylon, was writing from Jerusalem.
Appreciate your comment — and I absolutely agree with your prophetic insight into Jerusalem’s spiritual identity. You’re spot on in noting that Jerusalem is repeatedly portrayed as the persecuting city, the one “which now is, and is in bondage with her children” (Gal. 4:25). That’s the same city Jesus wept over in Matthew 23 — the one that “killed the prophets” — and the one He predicted would be left desolate.
You also rightly connect that to Revelation’s Babylon — a city guilty of “all the blood of the prophets” (Rev. 18:24) and of crucifying the Lord (Rev. 11:8). That cannot be pagan Rome.
Where I might offer a slight refinement is on Peter’s use of the word “Babylon.” I believe it’s a genuine reference to Mesopotamian Babylon — not a code word for either Rome or Jerusalem. Remember, Peter was writing to the scattered Jewish believers in Asia Minor (1 Peter 1:1), which aligns with the historical dispersion routes from literal Babylon. Babylon had a thriving Jewish population even into the first century, and that fits with Peter’s apostleship to the circumcision (Gal. 2:7).
Peter writing to scattered believers in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Pet. 1:1) had no reason to obscure Jerusalem’s name. It would have been a strange metaphor when that city still existed and was well-known among Jewish believers.
So while I agree that “Babylon” in Revelation refers to apostate Jerusalem — and that Jerusalem is rightly seen as the persecuting harlot — I believe Peter was writing from actual Babylon, not symbolically from Jerusalem.
Thanks again for the thought-provoking comment!
Thank you for your analysis. I think too many people want to find lots of coded meanings in scripture, which are often plainly written, although we don’t like or fully understand what it says. I think Babylon in your analysis is the actual Babylon, of Hebrew exile for 70 years and most of the diaspora Jews at that time remained in Babylon, a minority returned to Jerusalem. There are both a Jerusalem and Babylon Talmud, the Babylon being most prominent in Jewish following and that was began 200’s CE. So it would seem very likely Peter was preaching to Jewish followers in Babylon (in Iraq) and not some secret coded reference to Rome.
Those who proclaim Peter in Rome, cite coded language of “Babylon really being Rome” and the apocrypha “Acts of Peter”, a non-canonical reference, yet deny others like India christians using “Acts of Thomas” in their history – one apocrypha is to be accepted as absolute truth (Peter was in Rome) and the other dismissed as myth. I’d love to find proof of St. Peter in Rome, although it still does not justify many of the self serving liberties the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy has adopted over centuries (in contradiction to early church writings or practices) due to claims of “Apostolic Succession”, but that is a vastly different discussion.
Thank you for reading the article and for your well-reasoned and scripturally aware comment. I appreciate your clarity on the plain reading of Scripture — that Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13 most naturally refers to actual Babylon, where a large population of diaspora Jews remained even after the exile. Your reference to the Babylonian Talmud’s prominence adds further historical support to Peter’s location and mission as the apostle to the circumcision (Galatians 2:7).
You also make an excellent point about how traditions often rely on apocryphal sources inconsistently — accepting “Acts of Peter” to place him in Rome while dismissing “Acts of Thomas” for India. This selective validation shows how some traditions are shaped more by the needs of ecclesiastical narratives than by balanced historical evidence.
And you’re right — even if Peter had visited Rome briefly (which Scripture gives no indication of), that would not justify the layers of hierarchical doctrine built upon that assumption. Apostolic succession, as presented by the Roman system, contradicts the servant-based model Christ and His apostles demonstrated.
Thanks again for taking the time to comment. May we continue to let the Scriptures speak plainly — even when tradition would have us read between the lines.
Grace and truth in Christ,
Rick