Was Peter Poor?

A lot of scholars disagree with the popular idea that Peter was poor, but of course no one really knows. Some have postulated that they were 'middle class,' but that's unlikely, since 90% of the population was a peasant, and 10% were either elite or served the elite (bureaucrats, etc.) Merchants, often wealthy, and despised by peasants and aristocrats alike, were as close as you came to a middle class.

Keep in mind that: a) Peter and Andrew had a fishing business, instead of working for somebody else's business (but note there is no indication anyone worked for them), and b) their house was of a substantial size.

You may want to keep in mind that: a) John had some sort of connections with the upper priesthood, because he was allowed into the courtyard at Christ's trial; b) James and John were 'sons of Zebedee,' which would not be stated if 'Zebedee' weren't somewhat important; and c) Peter and Andrew were partners with James and John.

I'm skeptical of the idea that Peter was well-off. First, if you had much more money than the average person you were considered to be taking other peoples money, because (they thought) there was only so much money to be had in the world.

Second, being 'sons of Zebedee' indicated honor of some sort, which very possibly didn't go along with money. Ancient Jews based honor on family lineage, priestly associations, any work as a benefactor, etc. Money helped, but it was hardly the major factor it is today. Since John had connections with the high priest, and Capernaum wasn't a wealthy town, it makes sense to me that their family honor was derived from their priestly association somehow, not money.

Since only one room had something akin to a second room attached to it, the families didn't appear to have much money. Maybe it was just bigger because more families lived there. Maybe they had a chicken-raising business that demanded more space. Who knows.

To me, the biggest factor is that he was a partner in a business, v. being a hired laborer. Still, whereas 'partner' today indicates some status, 'partner' back then may have just been the fishing cooperative you were in. Hired laborers were just above slaves, so being above that wasn't exactly a measure of high status.

Plus, this may well not have been Peter's house. While evidence that it had Christian connotations from early centuries is substantial, evidence that it was Peter's house is limited to some graffiti markings that may be interpreted as 'Peter.' However, time has worn them down, and it's possible that wasn't the intention at all.

I'm also skeptical of the idea that Peter was particularly poor. Fishermen had more job stability than farmers - their income was never lost to a drought, excessive rain, or crop disease. Prices would rise, and ten fish would barter less wheat, but you wouldn't be left with no income and a sudden pile of debt.

Like I said, 90% of agrarian societies are peasants. Peasants are poor, yes. Often taxes and debt run very high, and little more than subsistence living is possible. But, was Peter poorer than the average peasant? Maybe, but I don't see any reason to think so.

The biggest argument would probably be that he was away from home so much, following Jesus, and had no chance to earn money. However, in a kinship environment like first-century Palestine, it's quite possible that lots of other people chipped in. It's also possible to make precisely the reverse argument out of that - he must have had a fair amount of money if he could be away from home so much, which renders the argument fairly powerless.

I feel like we exaggerate the idea that all the disciples were poor in order to emphasize that Christ can use anybody. Sure God can use anybody. You can grow up in Harlem, and God can use you in great ways. That doesn't mean that God needs you to be poor! Joanna, Mary Magdalene, Susannah and the 'other Mary' weren't. Matthew, as a tax collector, may not have been. Paul, moving forward a few years, probably wasn't. Nor were several of the prophets, moving back a few (hundred) years. God uses the poor, but he uses the wealthy too.

Last Updated: August 22, 2008