Peter and Paul – the Two Pillars of the Church

This year, the feast of St. Peter and St. Paul, June 29, coincided with the Sunday following Corpus Christi Sunday. While Pentecost, which is celebrated on the Sunday before Trinity Sunday, which precedes Corpus Christi Sunday, is regarded as the “birthday” of the Church, Corpus Christi Sunday is about understanding our assembly in the name of Christ to be the Body of Christ, besides our appreciation of the Eucharist, as I discussed in my last blog entry.

Carrying on our focus on the Church from Pentecost to Corpus Christi, and further to the feast of St. Peter and St. Paul, we honor Peter and Paul as the two pillars of the Church. Given their respective unique contributions to the nascent Church, as well-documented by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, Peter and Paul can be considered as the two foundation pillars of the Church.

However, some people have a problem with viewing Peter and Paul as parallel pillars of the Church, attributing to differences not only in their leadership styles of these great men but also the fact that only Peter was given the key to the Kingdom by Jesus.  So, they find it difficult to see Peter and Paul as the two parallel pillars of the Church. This point is well-taken.

According to the Gospel reading for the feast of Peter and Paul, Matthew 16:13-19, Jesus indicated Peter to be the foundation rock, on which he will build his Church, upon giving the key to the Kingdom of God (Matthew 16:18).  At that time, Paul was not in the scene. He was not even part of the twelve apostles.

In a strict sense, if Peter and Paul were to be the two pillars of the Church, not only that Paul would have received another key, together with Peter, and that both of these men shall be called to be the two pillars of the Church, which Jesus will build. Not to mention, those who have a hard time in viewing Peter and Paul as the two pillars tend to cling to this argument: Jesus called Peter the rock, upon which he will build his Church (Matthew 16:18), but did not call him a pillar of his Church with Paul, or the scripture did not say so.

We have this problem if we interpret the scripture only literally.

In practicing exegesis, we need to transcend the letters of the scriptural text, especially if it is a translated text. We also have to understand that what the scriptures are intended to convey to us is far more than what the human languages can communicate. So, this transcending attitude of exegesis is based on our acknowledgement of the limitations of the human languages, especially written languages.

This is why many biblical concepts are so loaded.

For example, if you were so rigid about following only the letters of the scripture, you sure would have a problem with Jesus’ own statements about himself. On one occasion, he says he is the bread of life that we are to eat (John 6:51). But, on another occasion, we are to eat his flesh for the same purpose (John 6:55-56).

If we could interpret the scriptures only literally, then, we would have a trouble in understanding what Jesus meant by John 6:51 and 6:55-56, inviting us to eat the bread of life and the flesh of Jesus himself in the same speech.  In John 6:51, Jesus says that he is the living bread on one hand, then, says that the living bread is his flesh. We wonder how bread and flesh can be the same. And, those who interpret the scripture only literally tend to get stuck with this kind of biblical expression.

Bread and flesh are different substance.　But, the flesh of Jesus that we are invited to eat for eternal life and the life in Christ comes in the physical form of unleavened bread. It is bread physically and the flesh of Christ substantially beyond the level of the human perception and cognition, we eat bread of life and the flesh of Christ with the same object.

Of course, to make sense out of these statements of Jesus, we must understand transubstantiation – the imperceptible substance of the bread and wine that Jesus uses as a metaphor for his body and blood will become the real body and blood of Christ for us to eat and drink, as he commanded, without looking and tasting like the human flesh and blood. And, there is no description of transubstantiation in the scriptures. Therefore, the concept of transubstantiation is a result of active exegesis.

This being said, through active exegesis, depending on how we see the Church, Peter and Paul can be understood as the two pillars of the Church, despite that these men became part of the Church at different times and with different qualities.  Just because anywhere in the scriptures it says that Peter and Paul are the two pillars of the Church, it does not preclude us from considering these great men of faith to be the two pillars of the Church.

By the same token, we can also understand that husband and wife are the two pillars of a family. As Peter and Paul are different, husband and wife are different in many aspects. Nevertheless, given a structural view that I apply in practicing a family therapy, the essential roles that husband and wife plays in a family echoes the founding roles both Peter and Paul played in the early Church.

It was Peter, who laid a part of the foundation of the Church, primarily based in Jerusalem, as the bedrock of the Church. On the other hand, Paul also laid another part of the foundation of the Church as the very first missionary leader, extending the bedrock of the Church beyond Jerusalem, beyond Judea, and beyond where the Jews are. 

Peter and Paul had different gifts. And, their different leadership roles in laying foundation of the Church are also like husband and wife, who are different and whose gifts are different, can lay the foundation of a family, through their unique roles.  God bestow different gifts in husband and wife, as He did to Peter and Paul. And, God expect husband and wife play different roles, yet, help one another and coordinate each other’s unique roles in laying the foundation of a family, in which they are the two pillars.

I am sure that none of those who read this blog will argue that we cannot compare Peter and Paul to husband and wife, because both Peter and Paul are men – but husband and wife are man and woman. If this were a problem, then, it would be a similar or even the same kind of problem that I mentioned – inability to transcend the bounds of letters in the scripture text in exegesis.