Watching a brilliant BBC program on the Vatican in high definition, I can't help but wonder. Why did the church place so much honour on the legacy of Peter in Rome when Paul could have been the most influential apostle amongst the Gentile churches in the Greco-Roman world?
It makes me wonder what has Peter done for the Greek-speaking churches that would make them remember and cherish Peter more than Paul? From the New Testament writings, especially from the book of Acts, there is hardly any evidence of Peter's influence on these churches in Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece and Italy. No doubt, part of the purpose for writing the book of Acts would be to legitimize the ministry of Paul amongst the Gentile believers as a continuation of the commandment from the Lord and an extension to the work of the earlier apostles in Palestine and Syria. That could have been the reason why Peter's work is so overshadowed by Paul's. Yet, it is quite reasonable to say that Peter is more comfortable with the work amongst Jewish believers rather than Gentiles given the descriptions that we get from the narrative in the book of Acts. And I think there is good reason to believe that Luke is more then merely being bias towards Paul, which of course, does come into consideration. I think there is enough evidence to say that Peter was indeed more comfortable to be the leader of the Jewish believers rather than the Gentiles.
So, why would his influence surpass Paul's in Rome which by large has a larger Gentile population? Why would Peter be going to Rome in the first place? Surely, Peter would have arrived much later than Paul after Claudius' death. Did he visit Paul during his imprisonment which I think Paul has hardly mentioned in his letter? So, there is really not much information on the reason why Peter went to Rome? Paul's journey to Rome is very much substantiated because he appealed to Caesar against the Jews who tried to harm him. On another note, if we are to consider the level of influence on Jewish believers, James, the brother of Jesus, would definitely have a higher pecking order compared to Peter. So, it is really difficult to understand why Peter's legacy has surpassed Paul's in Rome. Why the catholic church did not remember the contributions of Paul and James more than Peter's is an interesting point of speculation.
Is it because of the Lord's remark that he would build his church upon the foundation of Peter? Or is it because the legacy of Peter was specifically chosen by the later Western Church in the 4th and 5th century to legitimize their political strength based on the Lord' saying in influencing and deciding on critical doctrinal debates and arguments? Personally, I would speculate that the current honour given to Peter in the form of the Vatican and papacy is very much a creation of the Western churches in the later centuries rather than something which the first century churches have practiced.
It makes me wonder what has Peter done for the Greek-speaking churches that would make them remember and cherish Peter more than Paul? From the New Testament writings, especially from the book of Acts, there is hardly any evidence of Peter's influence on these churches in Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece and Italy. No doubt, part of the purpose for writing the book of Acts would be to legitimize the ministry of Paul amongst the Gentile believers as a continuation of the commandment from the Lord and an extension to the work of the earlier apostles in Palestine and Syria. That could have been the reason why Peter's work is so overshadowed by Paul's. Yet, it is quite reasonable to say that Peter is more comfortable with the work amongst Jewish believers rather than Gentiles given the descriptions that we get from the narrative in the book of Acts. And I think there is good reason to believe that Luke is more then merely being bias towards Paul, which of course, does come into consideration. I think there is enough evidence to say that Peter was indeed more comfortable to be the leader of the Jewish believers rather than the Gentiles.
So, why would his influence surpass Paul's in Rome which by large has a larger Gentile population? Why would Peter be going to Rome in the first place? Surely, Peter would have arrived much later than Paul after Claudius' death. Did he visit Paul during his imprisonment which I think Paul has hardly mentioned in his letter? So, there is really not much information on the reason why Peter went to Rome? Paul's journey to Rome is very much substantiated because he appealed to Caesar against the Jews who tried to harm him. On another note, if we are to consider the level of influence on Jewish believers, James, the brother of Jesus, would definitely have a higher pecking order compared to Peter. So, it is really difficult to understand why Peter's legacy has surpassed Paul's in Rome. Why the catholic church did not remember the contributions of Paul and James more than Peter's is an interesting point of speculation.
Is it because of the Lord's remark that he would build his church upon the foundation of Peter? Or is it because the legacy of Peter was specifically chosen by the later Western Church in the 4th and 5th century to legitimize their political strength based on the Lord' saying in influencing and deciding on critical doctrinal debates and arguments? Personally, I would speculate that the current honour given to Peter in the form of the Vatican and papacy is very much a creation of the Western churches in the later centuries rather than something which the first century churches have practiced.
Comments