Who was the other man that St. Paul was referring to in Romans 15:20?
Throughout Scripture we see evidence of what did not need to be specifically articulated. Evidence of Peter's primacy can be found in Acts 15. It describes the Council of Jerusalem where the Apostle Peter speaks to resolve the conflict faced by the congregation at that time, namely on the issue of circumcision. When St. Peter made the decision that bound all the faithful, discussion ceased and the people fell silent. They unanimously accepted his decision. St. James, as the local Bishop then made the closing speech at the Council of Jerusalem, and conveyed Peter's decision.
Peace be with you
“Who was the other man that St. Paul was referring to in Romans 15:20?”
“Rom 15:19-20 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. (20) Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation:
The answer is: Any man already preaching the Gospel and handling an area. IOW, he goes where he is needed. Not sure how you can imagine Peter into that.
“Throughout Scripture we see evidence of what did not need to be specifically articulated. Evidence of Peter’s primacy can be found in Acts 15. It describes the Council of Jerusalem where the Apostle Peter speaks to resolve the conflict faced by the congregation at that time, namely on the issue of circumcision. When St. Peter made the decision that bound all the faithful, discussion ceased and the people fell silent. They unanimously accepted his decision. St. James, as the local Bishop then made the closing speech at the Council of Jerusalem, and conveyed Peter’s decision.”
They accepted his decision because it was the obviously correct choice. You’d have to be a Roman Catholic to imagine it was just because he was allegedly the Pope, even after Paul apparently confronted him on the same topic here:
Gal 2:9-21 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. (10) Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. (11) But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. (12) For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. (13) And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. (14) But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (15) We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, (16) Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (17) But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. (18) For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. (19) For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. (20) I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Paul here conducts himself not as a Bishop in submission to the Pope, but as an equal among equals, confronting him in public in front of the congregation. And there is no sense here that Peter grew angry or rebuked him in return.
In fact, Paul speaking up here “in public” is the same way Peter spoke up “in public” on condemning the issue of works required for salvation in Acts 15.
I have no doubt, however, that any Christian man could have stood up and said something, and would have been equally treated.
Rev 5:9-10 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; (10) And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
In the Council of Jerusalem, Peter most clearly was NOT acting as Pope. James was the head of the council.
And Paul rebuked Petr publicly for adopting false theology in Galatians.
If Peter was the Vicar of Christ, Paul wouldn’t have needed to defend his being an Apostle. All he would have to write is, “Peter, Vicar of Christ, has declared I am an Apostle” - and “discussion ceased and the people fell silent. They unanimously accepted his decision. “
It didn’t happen that way...
“Who was the other man that St. Paul was referring to in Romans 15:20?”
Hmmm...
“20 And thus I aspired to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, so that I would not build on another man’s foundation; 21 but as it is written,
“ They who had no news of Him shall see,
And they who have not heard shall understand.”” - Romans 15
If he was referring to Peter (and I do not think he was), then he was expressly saying that Peter was NOT the foundation and that he was NOT building on Peter, but working apart from him.