I'm not saying the bible gives Peter a bad rap. He is, after all, called out as the first Pope which would presumably imply pretty high respect. But some of the anecdotes we read during Easter season are less than complimentary and (at least to me) needlessly so.
First we have Matthew quoting Jesus as calling Peter "Satan" when Peter suggests that maybe Christ dying isn't such a great plan. All four of the gospel writers note his betrayal during the trial. I've already written about John's little barb about him not being able to keep up running to the tomb. Today, we get as good an explanation as any as to why Paul became the primary defender of the gospel: Peter is just not a very good lawyer.
We tend to read the passage of the Pentecost through the lens of Renaissance paintings rather than constructing the scene in our heads directly from the text. The accusation makes a lot more sense if you take the story at face value. It starts by noting that the apostles, that is, twelve guys in their 20's, were all living in one house. Yeah, what could go wrong there? One morning they are all out front yelling out a bunch of stuff in a dozen different languages. The obvious conclusion is the one the bystanders came to: these dudes are drunk out of their minds.
Maybe Peter had never been to a frat party, but his defense is absurd: "We're not drunk, it's only 9AM." At what point after the discovery of alcohol did 9AM mean that young men are not drunk? Granted, he goes on to say some really important stuff after that and at least some folks were sold as the story ends with three thousand people getting baptized. But, seriously, that was your opening argument? That's the lamest defense ever.
No comments:
Post a Comment