Hijacked: How Rome Stole Christianity

The question of whether Peter was ever bishop of Rome is a matter of great historical and theological importance. The Roman Catholic Church holds that Peter not only ministered in Rome but also served as its first bishop and died there as a martyr. This claim undergirds the papacy’s doctrine of apostolic succession, by which Rome traces an unbroken episcopal line back to Peter; however, when the evidence is examined carefully, the New Testament itself does not support this claim, and later appeals to papal authority were also buttressed by documents now universally recognized as forgeries, most notably the medieval Donation of Constantine and the ninth-century Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals.

Let us examine this closely, for it is our duty and our right as Christians to follow the true Head of the church; Christ Himself; and the real apostles who gave their lives to deliver to us the Word of God through the power of the Holy Spirit.

In Galatians 2:7–9 Paul writes, “…the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter…” (KJB). This key passage highlights the distinct missions of the two apostles: Peter’s work was primarily among the Jews, while Paul’s was primarily among the Gentiles. Other passages in Scripture reinforce this division.

In Matthew 10:5–6 Jesus sends the Twelve with the instruction, “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” As one of the Twelve, Peter was originally commissioned to focus on Israel. His early ministry in Acts follows this pattern. On the Day of Pentecost, he preaches to “Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5, 14, 22), addressing them directly as “Ye men of Judaea… Ye men of Israel.” In Acts 3:12, 17, and 25, after healing the lame man, Peter again speaks to Israel, reminding them that they are “the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers.” His preaching is consistently directed toward a Jewish audience.

Acts also shows the geographical scope of Peter’s mission. In chapters 1–5 he remains in Jerusalem: leading the replacement of Judas (Acts 1:15–26), preaching at Pentecost (Acts 2), healing at the temple (Acts 3), and testifying before the Sanhedrin (Acts 4–5). In Acts 8:14–25 he and John are sent to Samaria to confirm the work of Philip. In Acts 9:32–43 he travels in Joppa and Lydda, both in Judea. Acts 10–11 records his visit to Cornelius in Caesarea, the first Gentile convert, but this event is marked as unusual. Peter himself admits, “Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean” (Acts 10:28). When he returned to Jerusalem, believers “of the circumcision contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them” (Acts 11:2–3). This shows that even Peter’s peers understood his mission field to be primarily the Jews.

By Acts 12 Peter is still in Jerusalem, where he is imprisoned by Herod Agrippa and then miraculously freed. Afterward the text simply says, “And he departed, and went into another place” (Acts 12:17), without specifying where. He reappears in Acts 15 at the Jerusalem council, affirming that God had granted repentance to the Gentiles also. After that, Peter disappears from Luke’s narrative, and the focus turns almost entirely to Paul.

Peter’s letters provide further insight into his mission. In 1 Peter 1:1 he addresses “the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.” These are all provinces in Asia Minor (modern Turkey), not Rome, suggesting his concern was for Jewish believers in the diaspora. In 1 Peter 5:13 he writes, “The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.” Some in the Roman Catholic tradition interpret “Babylon” here as Rome, but the text itself does not prove this. It could refer to literal Babylon in Mesopotamia, home to a large Jewish community, or be symbolic of worldly power. The second letter of Peter, addressed to “them that have obtained like precious faith” (2 Peter 1:1), gives no specific location. In all cases, Scripture never explicitly places Peter in Rome.

The New Testament also does not directly record Peter’s death. The only prophetic hint comes from John 21:18–19, where Jesus tells him, “When thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.” John explains that this signified by what death Peter would glorify God, implying martyrdom, perhaps by crucifixion. Beyond this prophecy, the biblical record is silent. Later traditions from writers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Eusebius place Peter’s martyrdom in Rome under Nero, crucified upside down, but this is tradition rather than Scripture.

Taken together, the biblical evidence shows Peter’s mission centered in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Caesarea, and Asia Minor. His preaching in Acts consistently addresses Jews, and his letters are directed to scattered believers in Asia Minor. Even his encounter with Cornelius shows how unusual it was for him to minister among Gentiles. By contrast, Paul is repeatedly identified as the apostle to the Gentiles (Romans 11:13; Galatians 2:7–9; 1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:11). The New Testament itself never states that Peter went to Rome, nor does it describe his death. Claims about his role as bishop of Rome or his martyrdom there come from later church tradition, not the biblical record.

When we ask whether Peter was ever bishop of Rome, the first place to look is Scripture itself. The New Testament shows Peter’s ministry in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Caesarea, and later in Asia Minor. Nowhere does the New Testament say that Peter was bishop of Rome, or even that he traveled there.

Early tradition, however, preserves two different lines of memory about Peter’s legacy. In the East, the church at Antioch remembered him as its founder. Acts 11:26 records that Antioch was the place where believers were first called “Christians,” and according to tradition, Peter established the church there. He is said to have appointed Evodius as his successor as bishop of Antioch, and Ignatius of Antioch; martyred around AD 108; followed as the next bishop. This succession is preserved in the Eastern churches, not in Rome.

By contrast, Roman Catholic tradition claims that Peter traveled to Rome, founded the church there, and served as its first bishop. In this version, Linus (mentioned briefly in 2 Timothy 4:21) succeeded him, followed by Cletus and Clement. This succession list was recorded by Irenaeus around AD 180 and later repeated by Eusebius in the early 4th century; both writing long after Peter’s death.

These two traditions create a conflict. The Eastern memory places Peter in Antioch, where he left Evodius as bishop and where Ignatius became the prominent early successor. The Western tradition places him in Rome, leaving Linus as bishop and beginning the Roman papal line. Both accounts cannot be literally true in the same sense, since Peter only died once in one place. The tension suggests that the idea of an unbroken Roman succession from Peter was emphasized retroactively to bolster Rome’s authority, while Antioch preserved an older tradition of his role there.

This matters because if Peter truly founded the church in Antioch and appointed Evodius as his successor, then the claim that Linus was his immediate successor in Rome becomes questionable. The Roman papal line, therefore, rests more on tradition than on Scripture or universally agreed testimony from the earliest period. It also shows that Christianity in the first centuries had multiple centers of authority; Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome; and that Rome’s later primacy owed as much to politics and geography as it did to direct apostolic succession.

If Peter ever came to Rome, it would have been late in his life, during the 60s AD, under Nero’s reign (AD 54–68). That would place him in Rome not as the church’s founder but as a martyr at the end of his ministry.

The Roman church already existed long before that. In Acts 2:10, on the Day of Pentecost, Luke notes that among the Jews gathered in Jerusalem were “strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes.” It is highly likely that these pilgrims, converted under Peter’s own sermon at Pentecost, carried the gospel back to Rome. This explains why, when Paul writes to the Christians in Rome around AD 57, a well-established church is already present; with multiple house congregations and many named leaders (Romans 16). Yet strikingly, Paul never mentions Peter in that letter, which would be inexplicable if Peter were the church’s founder or bishop at that time.

Nero’s reign (AD 54–68) is historically crucial. Tacitus (Annals 15.44) records that after the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64, Nero blamed the Christians and launched a brutal persecution. Early Christian tradition places Peter and Paul’s martyrdoms in this very persecution. That makes sense: Peter could have been in Rome in the mid-60s, suffering martyrdom there; but not decades earlier founding the community.

Timeline of Peter, Antioch, and Rome

Between AD 30 and 33, Scripture places Peter in Jerusalem, where he leads the early church. In Acts 1–5 he is present at Pentecost, performs healings, preaches to the crowds, and stands as the central spokesman for the apostles. At this stage Antioch has not yet emerged as a major center, and there is no claim of Peter being in Rome.

In the 40s, Peter’s ministry takes him through Judea, Samaria, and Caesarea, as recorded in Acts 8–12. He is imprisoned by Herod in Jerusalem and then miraculously freed (Acts 12:1–17). Meanwhile Antioch begins to rise in importance as a mission center, according to Acts 11:19–26. Again, the biblical record offers no mention of Peter in Rome during this period.

Around AD 47–53, Paul’s letter to the Galatians provides one of the clearest markers of Peter’s location. Galatians 2:11 describes Paul confronting Peter in Antioch over his inconsistent behavior toward Gentile believers. Early tradition holds that Peter left Evodius as bishop in Antioch at this time. The Roman claim of Peter’s presence in their city remains entirely absent.

From roughly AD 53 to 70, Peter’s surviving letters reveal his pastoral concern for believers in Asia Minor. In 1 Peter 1:1 he writes to Jewish-background Christians scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia; provinces in modern Turkey. During this time, tradition maintains that Evodius continued to serve as bishop of Antioch. Scripture still contains no mention of Peter in Rome, though later Roman episcopal lists retroactively assign him there.

Between AD 70 and 108, the New Testament records only Jesus’ earlier prophecy of Peter’s death (John 21:18–19), but gives no location. By this point Evodius had died and Ignatius became bishop of Antioch. Ignatius was later martyred under Emperor Trajan around AD 108. It is not until the late second century that Irenaeus (c. 180) begins teaching that both Peter and Paul together founded the Roman church and that Linus succeeded the apostles as bishop. This assertion surfaces more than a century after Peter’s death, without scriptural support.

What this shows is that the biblical record and early Eastern tradition alike anchor Peter’s base in Antioch, not in Rome. The succession from Peter to Evodius and then to Ignatius fits naturally with the earliest evidence. By contrast, the idea that Peter founded the Roman church and left Linus as his successor appears later in Western tradition, with no grounding in the New Testament itself.

The pieces begin to fit together

According to Hegesippus, a second-century Christian writer preserved by Eusebius of Caesarea, Emperor Domitian ordered that the grandsons of Jude, one of Jesus’ brothers, be brought before him. Domitian had heard that members of Jesus’ family; the so-called Desposyni, “those belonging to the Master”; still lived in Palestine. He feared they might lead a political uprising, since the house of David was often associated with messianic expectations. When questioned, they showed their calloused hands from farming and testified that Christ’s kingdom was not of this world but a heavenly one. Domitian, realizing they posed no threat, released them and even ended the persecution in that region.

This encounter is significant, because it shows that Jesus’ family was still known and active after His death and resurrection. The claim of Mary’s perpetual virginity does not fit with the fact that Jesus’ brothers; including James and Jude; are mentioned repeatedly in Scripture (e.g. Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3). James the Just, described by Hegesippus as the Lord’s brother, became the leader of the Jerusalem church. Josephus records that he was executed around AD 62, stoned to death at the instigation of the high priest Ananus. Thus, the blood of Christ’s own brother was shed by the religious establishment, while his surviving relatives later stood before the emperor of Rome himself.

All of this unfolded under the shadow of Caesars who demanded worship as gods. Julius Caesar was deified after his assassination, and Augustus took the title “son of god.” Tiberius, remembered for his debauchery on Capri, was infamous for sexual perversions and predation on boys. Caligula went further, parading himself as divine, dressing as gods, practicing incest with his sisters, and reportedly claiming to be the son of Jupiter (Zeus Ammon in the East) ; the horned god whom the Romans connected to Osiris. Nero, notorious for murdering his own mother and indulging in every excess, demanded divine honors while launching the first great persecution of Christians. Finally, Domitian insisted on being addressed as “dominus et deus noster” “our lord and god.”

The contrast is sharp. The emperors, corrupt and self-exalting, demanded worship as earthly gods. Meanwhile, Christ’s family; the very blood relatives of the Messiah; stood before these rulers confessing that His kingdom was not of this world. Clement of Rome, who was bishop during Domitian’s reign, wrote to the Corinthians about “sudden and repeated calamities” that had struck the church, likely alluding to this same wave of persecution.

The murder of James the Just and the interrogation of Jude’s grandsons show how deeply the empire feared the true heirs of David’s line, even as its rulers exalted themselves as divine (the seed of the serpent). In the end, the Caesars sought glory as “lords and gods” on earth, but the early church held fast to the confession that only Jesus Christ is Lord, and His kingdom alone is eternal.

After the death of Domitian in AD 96, Rome briefly loosened its grip. Domitian had demanded worship as “lord and god” and interrogated the family of Jesus itself, but after his assassination, the emperor Nerva relaxed the harshest measures. The relatives of Jesus, like the grandsons of Jude, were left in peace, and the church in Rome continued under leaders such as Clement I. Clement wrote pastoral letters exhorting faith and unity, but he had no political standing and no recognition from the state. The church was still a spiritual body, not a political institution.

Under Trajan (98–117) and his successors, the empire continued to claim divine authority. Christians were tolerated only so long as they posed no public threat. To refuse sacrifice to the emperor or the gods was seen as treason; not just impiety, but rebellion against Rome’s supremacy. This led to waves of persecution. The Caesars still demanded worship, still wrapped political power in divine claims, and still saw themselves as ultimate arbiters of religion.

And yet, in the shadows of empire, the church grew. It spread among the poor and slaves, but also reached educated elites. Writers like Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus of Lyons stressed that Christ’s kingdom was not of this world, standing in stark contrast to Rome’s earthly power. To endure, the church developed stronger internal structures; bishops, presbyters, deacons; which provided stability. But still, for nearly three centuries, Christianity survived as an underground movement, without imperial recognition.

The turning point came with Constantine in the early fourth century. In 312, after his victory at the Milvian Bridge, he "claimed" that the Christian God had granted him success. In 313, the Edict of Milan legalized Christianity. What had once been outlawed was suddenly favored. Wealth and imperial privileges flowed into the church. Bishops began to work alongside emperors, and emperors began to see themselves as protectors; even masters; of the faith.

By 380, under Theodosius I, Christianity was declared the official religion of the Roman Empire. The faith of a crucified Messiah; who had said plainly, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36, KJB) ; was suddenly proclaimed the faith of the Caesars. This was the same empire that had crucified Christ, murdered His apostles, and persecuted His followers for three centuries. Now, without repentance or apostolic authority, it draped itself in the name of Christ for the sake of power.

The Roman emperors had no apostolic succession and no commission from Christ or His apostles. Apostolic succession means authority passed directly from the apostles to their chosen disciples and bishops (Paul to Timothy, Peter to the elders of Asia Minor). The Caesars were utterly outside that line. Yet Constantine, barely converted and not even baptized until his deathbed, convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE and presided over bishops as though he had the right to settle doctrine. Theodosius I went further still, making Christianity the state religion in 380 and enforcing orthodoxy by imperial decree. Men who had once demanded divine honors for themselves now claimed the authority to define Christ’s church.

The hypocrisy runs deep. Rome outlawed the Sabbath God sanctified and exalted Sunday in its place. It continued to fill its churches with statues and images, breaking the Second Commandment, while insisting this was “Christian worship.” It claimed to honor the Scriptures even as it twisted them to fit imperial needs.

The corruption did not stop with Constantine and Theodosius. In the Middle Ages, the papacy leaned on outright lies to solidify its temporal power. The Donation of Constantine; a forged decree; claimed Constantine had handed the pope authority over Rome and the Western Empire. The Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals; another web of forgeries; invented papal privileges and legal precedents that never existed. These documents, exposed centuries later as false, were used for generations to justify the supremacy of Rome.

So the irony and the betrayal stand exposed: emperors with no spiritual authority seized control of the faith; they silenced rival voices, abolished God’s commands, and replaced truth with endless lies. The church that had once been persecuted by the Caesars was now ruled by their heirs, who had no right before God to sit in the place of Christ’s apostles.

This was the great shift; what can rightly be called a hijacking. For three centuries, the church was purified by suffering, existing outside the structures of worldly power. Once embraced by Rome, it became tied to imperial politics, wealth, and coercion. The humility of the early church gave way to councils convened by emperors, bishops supported by the state, and a religion made to serve the interests of empire.

In short, Domitian embodied the imperial demand for worship and power; the early church survived persecution precisely because it was not political. But from Constantine onward, and especially after Theodosius, Rome absorbed Christianity into its system of rule. The transformation was not based on Scripture, apostolic succession, or the authority of Christ; it was the empire’s way of making the church serve its own ends.

When we trace the history of Christianity, the pattern is plain. In the first and second centuries, the earliest writings; Paul’s letters, the Gospels, Revelation; were born under persecution. They declared a kingdom not of this corrupt world, a Messiah whose power came from God alone; not from a pagan Caesar or a pope usurping Christ’s seat. But by the fourth century, under Constantine and Theodosius, the church was absorbed into the Roman imperial system. From then on, Christianity was shaped, streamlined, and rebranded to serve empire.

What did that look like? Writings outside the canon were suppressed. The Gospel of Thomas was condemned as Gnostic. The Shepherd of Hermas, once read in Roman churches, was sidelined. The Gospel of Peter, the Acts of Paul and Thecla, the Gospel of Mary; all cast aside, not because they were necessarily false, but because they did not fit the imperial project of uniformity. At the same time, forged documents like the Donation of Constantine and the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals gave the papacy a paper trail of power it never possessed. Rome narrowed the record, erased rivals, and declared itself the only true heir of Christ’s authority.

And yet; did not God give us free will to discern the Scriptures for ourselves? Why then do so many still bow to Rome’s version of events, knowing that the empire itself was founded on violence and violation? Roman tradition traces its beginning to Romulus, born of a woman and a fallen angel (Romulus therefore Nephilim), later infamous for abducting and raping the women of the Sabines to populate his city. From the very start, Rome’s story was one of force, deceit, and domination. Can such a legacy ever be reconciled with the gospel of Christ?

The contradictions pile up. Scripture records that Jesus was buried with two separate pieces of linen; one for His body and a separate napkin for His head (John 20:6–7, KJB). Yet Rome promotes the Shroud of Turin as if it were genuine, though it depicts a single-sheet burial cloth and has no basis in the apostolic record. Likewise, the timing of many traditions does not match the New Testament’s own testimony.

So why continue to accept Rome’s gospel, when the evidence shows forgeries, fabrications, and historical manipulation? The Bereans were called “more noble” because they searched the Scriptures daily to see whether what they were taught was true (Acts 17:11). That is the true call of Christ’s followers: not blind submission to Rome’s Latin version of history, but a return to the Word itself.

The emperors sought worship as “lords and gods.” Rome shaped Christianity into a religion of empire. But the true faith is not chained to emperors, popes or forged decrees. It is written, it is preserved, and it is open to all who will search the Scriptures and discern with the Spirit of truth.

To keep the light of Christ alive in us, we must see through the lies, the manipulation, and the greed of empire. From the moment Rome hijacked the faith, Christianity was bent into a tool of power. The Sabbath was cast aside. Idols and images were set up in defiance of God’s commands. Doctrines were fixed to serve emperors, not Scripture. Forgeries like the Donation of Constantine and the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals were peddled as truth. The Inquisitions shed rivers of blood in the name of “holy men.” Crusades turned the cross into a sword of conquest. Corruption and indulgences exploited the poor. And in our own day, the filth of pedophilia has been covered up within the very walls that claim to be Christ’s church.

This is the fruit of Rome’s empire-church: lies, political fabrications, greed, murder, and abuse; all in the name of the Lord who said, “My kingdom is not of this world.”

The Bereans were called noble because they searched the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. That is our task now: to tear off the mask of empire and return to the Word itself. Reject the counterfeit gospel of Rome, and cling to the truth of Christ. Your soul depends on it.