What’s the notable name missing? Did you work it out?
There is no mention of Peter!
According to the Roman and papist catalogue of bishops, Peter was supposed to have been at Rome at this time. If he were not in Rome at this time, the foundation stone of Rome’s ascendancy, of Peter’s supremacy, and of the uninterrupted succession, is taken away, and the whole notion of the uninterrupted line of Popes from Peter and the time of Christ falls. But if Peter were at Rome at this time, Paul would have sent his salutations to him in the first place. If Peter were there, he was supposedly there as Bishop and Vicar of Jesus Christ. If he were there, it is unlikely that Paul would not mention him, while Andronicus and Junia are mentioned as of note among the apostles.
Why would Paul call the people to remedy the disorders that had crept in among them? Would he not give this input to Peter as the head of the Church? And if there were a Church founded there in the Papist sense, of which Peter was the head, is it likely that the Church should be in the house of Priscilla and Aquila? It is more likely that Peter, rather than being universal bishop at Rome, never saw the city in his lifetime.
Not only do we need to pay attention to what is in Scripture but we ought also to pay attention to those things that are not recorded. Even that can throw some light on doctrines men hold dear.
Let’s hold fast to the teaching of Scripture not to the doctrines of man.Ian Vail
Many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising.Mark Twain
I have zero confidence in myself but unlimited confidence when obeying what God has clearly commanded all of us all to do.Rick Warren