In the Scriptures, there is not the slightest hint of a person of authority, who should be designated as a successor of Peter. In them is never any talk of a representative of Christ. They report solely disciples of Jesus Christ. There is also nothing written stating that Peter was installed as the visible head of the Church. How can there be a man who is supposed to be the head, if Christ Himself is the head?

Of Jesus Christ is written, “And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church” (Col. 1: 17-18). Whoever claims to be the head, elevates himself to the level of Christ and must place himself under the condemnation of the Word (2 Thess. 2:  3-4). A biblically believing Christian can only recognise the Lord as the head of the church. A representative, or “Vicarius Filii Dei”, has not been instituted by Christ. He himself has redeemed His church and is bringing it to perfection.

It is interesting to read about spiritual development in the history of the church. The legends of Peter having acted as Bishop in Rome and having been buried there cannot be historically proved. There is only reported a magician named Simon Magus, who made such an impression on the Senate and the people in Rome, that they declared him to be a god and made a statue and set it up with the inscription: “Simoni dea sancto.”

What has such an account to do with the man of God, Simon Peter, who never set foot in Rome? Also here we refer to the Scriptures alone. According to Galatians 2: 9, Peter, James and John on the one part, and Paul and Barnabas on the other, agreed by a hand-clasp that Paul and Barnabas should go unto the heathen, whereas Peter and the others should go to the Jews.

Paul was the outstanding apostle to the heathen, for God had separated him for this purpose. To him God had said, “Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles” (Acts 22: 21). To the church at Rome Paul writes, “… I will come by you into Spain” (Rom. 15: 28). The missionary journeys of Paul, including that to Rome, are clearly described. Why is not a single journey of Peter to that city reported? From Rome, Paul sent out the majority of his epistles to the various churches and individuals. Many who were together with him there were spoken of by name, without Peter being mentioned a single time. Who can suppose this to have been possible, if Peter had worked with him in Rome?

In addition, it is of secondary importance where a man of God spent his time and worked. It is solely a matter of exposing a pious fable, upon which a large institution is built, with which she seeks to give her doctrines authority. To this we can only answer with the words of Peter himself, “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables …” (2 Pet. 1:16).

Also the Scriptures report nothing about an apostolic succession. When Leo the Great in A. D. 440 was chosen as Bishop of Rome, he made the claim, that the Roman Bishop had precedence over all other bishops. He it was, who in this connection referred to Mt. 6:  16. Ceremoniously he proclaimed himself in person as Peter’s successor. Until then this idea had already now and again cropped up among the “Nicolaitans”, but had never yet been linked to a spiritual office. It was a direction of belief which emphasised the difference between the listening laity and the ministering brothers. It is absolutely against the Word. The redeemed church makes up a “royal priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:  9).

It is well known to historians that the consecrated man of God Polycarp (died A. D. 155) was together with John, the disciple whom Jesus loved and who was banned to the Isle of Patmos. He heard the pure witness from the mouth of the apostle. Not once is there to be found in his writings even the slightest hint of the ideas invented later. Irenæus (died 202), a messenger of Christ endowed with power, was for a considerable length of time together with Polycarp. He also had nothing to report of a successor to Peter. Until that time men tried as far as possible to hold to the Word of God. Tertullian (died 220) said, “To the Lord, not the servant, belong judgement and verdict.”

Even at the Council of Nicea such a thought was not mentioned by the two spokesmen Athanasius and Arius. It was not until A. D. 445 that Emperor Valentinian confirmed the Bishop of Rome as the supreme head of the church in the West. Now all the power radiated from Rome. The famous ecclesiastical teacher Augustine of Hippo (354-430) gave this thought pre-eminence when he wrote about a “divine state”. For him the church constituted the “Kingdom of God.” He taught that “church is authority.” Where remains the authority of Him Who had said, “All power is given UNTO ME in heaven and in earth!”?

This unbiblical development cannot be traced back to the Apostles in the early church. As already mentioned, there were at that time the offices instituted by the Lord for the whole church. But each local assembly had responsible brothers. They were denoted either as “elders”, as “overseers” or as “bishops.” For example, in his epistle to the Philippians Paul greets the church of the Lord as saints, together with their bishops and deacons. These two offices belonged in the local church. A biblical requirement for this task was that such a man must be married (1 Tim. 3: 3) — it was never demanded of any apostle or prophet that he had to be the husband of one wife, but it was required of deacons and bishops. Only somebody who himself had to overcome marriage and family problems can from experience give others advice and help.

Nevertheless, the Spirit of God already revealed then, as Paul himself said, that it would not remain so. In 1 Tim. 4 we read, “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats …” Of what do we think on reading this Word? It has literally been fulfilled.

In the Scriptures, there is not the slightest hint of a person of authority, who should be designated as a successor of Peter. In them is never any talk of a representative of Christ. They report solely disciples of Jesus Christ. There is also nothing written stating that Peter was installed as the visible head of the Church. How can there be a man who is supposed to be the head, if Christ Himself is the head?

Of Jesus Christ is written, “And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church” (Col. 1: 17-18). Whoever claims to be the head, elevates himself to the level of Christ and must place himself under the condemnation of the Word (2 Thess. 2:  3-4). A biblically believing Christian can only recognise the Lord as the head of the church. A representative, or “Vicarius Filii Dei”, has not been instituted by Christ. He himself has redeemed His church and is bringing it to perfection.

It is interesting to read about spiritual development in the history of the church. The legends of Peter having acted as Bishop in Rome and having been buried there cannot be historically proved. There is only reported a magician named Simon Magus, who made such an impression on the Senate and the people in Rome, that they declared him to be a god and made a statue and set it up with the inscription: “Simoni dea sancto.”

What has such an account to do with the man of God, Simon Peter, who never set foot in Rome? Also here we refer to the Scriptures alone. According to Galatians 2: 9, Peter, James and John on the one part, and Paul and Barnabas on the other, agreed by a hand-clasp that Paul and Barnabas should go unto the heathen, whereas Peter and the others should go to the Jews.

Paul was the outstanding apostle to the heathen, for God had separated him for this purpose. To him God had said, “Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles” (Acts 22: 21). To the church at Rome Paul writes, “… I will come by you into Spain” (Rom. 15: 28). The missionary journeys of Paul, including that to Rome, are clearly described. Why is not a single journey of Peter to that city reported? From Rome, Paul sent out the majority of his epistles to the various churches and individuals. Many who were together with him there were spoken of by name, without Peter being mentioned a single time. Who can suppose this to have been possible, if Peter had worked with him in Rome?

In addition, it is of secondary importance where a man of God spent his time and worked. It is solely a matter of exposing a pious fable, upon which a large institution is built, with which she seeks to give her doctrines authority. To this we can only answer with the words of Peter himself, “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables …” (2 Pet. 1:16).

Also the Scriptures report nothing about an apostolic succession. When Leo the Great in A. D. 440 was chosen as Bishop of Rome, he made the claim, that the Roman Bishop had precedence over all other bishops. He it was, who in this connection referred to Mt. 6:  16. Ceremoniously he proclaimed himself in person as Peter’s successor. Until then this idea had already now and again cropped up among the “Nicolaitans”, but had never yet been linked to a spiritual office. It was a direction of belief which emphasised the difference between the listening laity and the ministering brothers. It is absolutely against the Word. The redeemed church makes up a “royal priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:  9).

It is well known to historians that the consecrated man of God Polycarp (died A. D. 155) was together with John, the disciple whom Jesus loved and who was banned to the Isle of Patmos. He heard the pure witness from the mouth of the apostle. Not once is there to be found in his writings even the slightest hint of the ideas invented later. Irenæus (died 202), a messenger of Christ endowed with power, was for a considerable length of time together with Polycarp. He also had nothing to report of a successor to Peter. Until that time men tried as far as possible to hold to the Word of God. Tertullian (died 220) said, “To the Lord, not the servant, belong judgement and verdict.”

Even at the Council of Nicea such a thought was not mentioned by the two spokesmen Athanasius and Arius. It was not until A. D. 445 that Emperor Valentinian confirmed the Bishop of Rome as the supreme head of the church in the West. Now all the power radiated from Rome. The famous ecclesiastical teacher Augustine of Hippo (354-430) gave this thought pre-eminence when he wrote about a “divine state”. For him the church constituted the “Kingdom of God.” He taught that “church is authority.” Where remains the authority of Him Who had said, “All power is given UNTO ME in heaven and in earth!”?

This unbiblical development cannot be traced back to the Apostles in the early church. As already mentioned, there were at that time the offices instituted by the Lord for the whole church. But each local assembly had responsible brothers. They were denoted either as “elders”, as “overseers” or as “bishops.” For example, in his epistle to the Philippians Paul greets the church of the Lord as saints, together with their bishops and deacons. These two offices belonged in the local church. A biblical requirement for this task was that such a man must be married (1 Tim. 3: 3) — it was never demanded of any apostle or prophet that he had to be the husband of one wife, but it was required of deacons and bishops. Only somebody who himself had to overcome marriage and family problems can from experience give others advice and help.

Nevertheless, the Spirit of God already revealed then, as Paul himself said, that it would not remain so. In 1 Tim. 4 we read, “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats …” Of what do we think on reading this Word? It has literally been fulfilled.