Paul vs Peter, Apostle to the Gentiles

[JonathanL]

Paul was sent to the Gentiles as a sort of punishment ...

That seems like quiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiite a stretch to me, and hardly something that can be supported by the text of the NT.

[tabibito]

That seems like quiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiite a stretch to me, and hardly something that can be supported by the text of the NT.

Of course it can. You only need to take this bit from here, redefine that word, add a another bit from there, and another bit that has nothing to do with Paul anyway, and wallah! The scriptures support the story.

[One Bad Pig]

Peter was sent to a Gentile named Cornelius. Acts 10.

However before Acts 10, in Acts 9 Jesus sent Paul to the Gentiles.

This is not an accurate reading of the text. In Acts 9, God sent Ananias to heal and baptize Paul, "for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel." Those words were said to Ananias, not Paul, and Paul's immediate action was to dispute with the Jews, not Gentiles; there is no indication from the text that Ananias repeated those words to Paul.

Why do you think Jesus didn't send Paul to Cornelius instead of Peter?

Perhaps because Paul wasn't exactly a trusted leader of the church at the time?

Or why didn't Jesus make Peter the Apostle to the Gentiles?

Thanks.

Peter was already the leader of the church; you want him to do everything?

You ask some odd questions.

[seanD]

My answer:

Jesus probably sent Peter to Cornelius to teach him what He wanted him to know at that time; that
God declared Gentiles clean. Before that time Peter would have considered Gentiles unclean and would not have eaten with them.

I think Jesus knew Paul would make a better Apostle to the Gentiles.

Peter had some flaws; he denied Jesus; at first Peter had table fellowship with Gentiles and then he refused to eat with them.

Peter was negatively influence by the Judaizers.

Jesus could depend on Paul whereas He could not depend on Peter.

You pretty much answered it.

I think the sentence in bold is the primary reason. The clear proof of that is laid out in the first two chapters of Galatians. Peter was too wishy-washy, still enslaved to his orthodox roots. I envision it as an evangelical Christian today hobnobbing with members of a questionable rock or rap music group until his Christian companions show up, then he not only shuns the group, but even joins his companions in castigating the group (don't know if that's exactly how it happened, but that's what I imagine).

Paul was an orthodox Jewish renegade. And that's apparently the radicalism that God needed as the bridge to the Gentiles, lest the Gentiles just ended up being a splinter sect of Judaism (proselyte Jews).

[Littlejoe]

This is not an accurate reading of the text. In Acts 9, God sent Ananias to heal and baptize Paul, "for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel." Those words were said to Ananias, not Paul, and Paul's immediate action was to dispute with the Jews, not Gentiles; there is no indication from the text that Ananias repeated those words to Paul.

Yes... and also, Paul tells us in Galatians 1:15-18 that he spent 3 years in preparation (in the desert?) before beginning his ministry.

Perhaps because Paul wasn't exactly a trusted leader of the church at the time?

Peter was already the leader of the church; you want him to do everything?

Yep! Peter was by far the leader of the Church in Jerusalem at the start....Also, it was Peter who confirmed Paul at the Jerusalem Council that swayed the verdict in Paul's favor of allowing Gentiles into the Church...that probably doesn't happen with out Peters experience with Cornelius.

[Mountain Man]

Peter was sent to a Gentile named Cornelius. Acts 10.

However before Acts 10, in Acts 9 Jesus sent Paul to the Gentiles.

Why do you think Jesus didn't send Paul to Cornelius instead of Peter?

Or why didn't Jesus make Peter the Apostle to the Gentiles?

Thanks.

We can know what happened, but we can only speculate about God's reasoning. I would respond with a question: Does it matter?

[mikewhitney]

That seems like quiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiite a stretch to me, and hardly something that can be supported by the text of the NT.

Maybe Paul seems to stretch things a bit, in some people's eyes.

I probably should have said that his call to a Gentile mission was with a strong degree of irony (a big twist). Paul, as a Pharisee, took on the task of hunting down his fellow countrymen to stop the Messianic movement. At the same time, we can infer that Paul had seen Gentiles as unclean. In this great twist, Paul was sent to evangelize the people he would have least likely wanted to be among -- before he came to Christ.