D
Digitonomy
Guest
In another thread, we were discussing why Simon Peter was chosen by Christ, rather than say the next fisherman. I pondered whether Peter may have had some personal traits, such as speaking, organizational, or leadership skills, that made him well-suited. Another member seemed to suggest just the opposite, that it was Peter’s lack of speaking skills that made him a good choice:
MDK:
None of that seems to give much insight into why Peter was chosen, rather than say Andrew, or James, or other fishermen who may have been milling about, but didn’t even get chosen as Apostles. Is there tradition, or later scriptural evidence, that helps explain this choice?
I had always assumed Christ had Peter in mind to lead the Apostles from the get-go, but looking back at the Gospels, there doesn’t seem to be much to go on as to why. Mark 1 and Matthew 4 provide only a perfunctory description of the first encounter, and Simon and his brother Andrew are recruited together. The first mention in Luke (chapter 4) is of Jesus curing Simon’s mother-in-law. I suppose Peter may have had a stronger personal loyalty to Jesus after that event than the others. In John’s account (chapter 1), Simon’s brother Andrew was apparently rounded up first, and he went back and brought Simon to Jesus, where he received his new name, Peter.It was correct to say that Peter had great love for Christ, but was not particularly smooth speaker. It would be obvious that it was God working in Peter that would glorify God, and not Peter’s natural talents.
None of that seems to give much insight into why Peter was chosen, rather than say Andrew, or James, or other fishermen who may have been milling about, but didn’t even get chosen as Apostles. Is there tradition, or later scriptural evidence, that helps explain this choice?