St. Peter: Part 2

Monday saw the first part of this two-part posting of some thoughts, adapted from an essay, on the Apostle Peter. The first post looked at his role in the Synoptic Gospels more generally, today is focusing on his commissioning by Jesus, and what this might mean...

image from here.

A key part of Peter’s role in the Gospels, and indeed his subsequent effect on history, is Jesus’ commissioning of him. The famous statement of Jesus in Matthew 16:18; 

‘And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it'

is something that has meant many things to different streams of Christian thought and theology throughout the intervening millennia. Kelly echoes the words of the early church father Ambrose, suggesting that ‘the rock mentioned in it was not so much the apostle’s person so much as his faith in Christ’s messiahship or divinity, or even the Saviour Himself, the object of his faith’. This statement should be seen as one that has divided Christendom, but it is undeniably the case that Peter was the subject of the statement, even if not the object equating to the rock.

The faithfulness of Peter to Jesus is another theme oft alluded to, and one of the qualities that made him so suited to his role as leader of the apostles. In Matthew, before his brash statement that he will not deny Jesus, Peter blurts out; ‘Though all become deserters because of you, I will never desert you’. Peter’s heart for, and faithfulness to, Jesus, are defining hallmarks of the man whose portrait is painted for us in the Synoptic Gospels. As Lowe puts it, with a hint perhaps of polemic against those who would see Peter as the father of the Papacy; ‘no-one can take over Peter’s function as the Rock man. The foundation is laid once and for all. And no-one can inherit his apostolic commission’. This faithfulness is perhaps one of the reasons why Jesus effectively made Peter the prime Apostle, and bestowed such a role and honour upon him.

The death of Jesus is the most important part of his time on earth, and in keeping with his following Jesus, Peter is right in the action. Before Jesus is taken away, Peter is filled with devotion for his lord, and cuts the ear of an assailant off. This is typical of his brash, passionate nature. Lowe paints a stirring picture of this side of Peter, observing that we see a;

‘impetuous, daring, forward man, ready to throw himself into the water, self-assertive, quick to speak, quick to promise, brave at the outset yet withal unstable and fickle, a ‘wobbler’ in times of crisis, still with enough in him to recover and be all right at the end’

This is a man with which any follower of Jesus can be challenged to identify with. Peter is brave, but human. He leads, but needs Jesus to lead effectively. He is bold, but fallible. In order to see why this bold, fallible man has come to be seen as the apostolic root of the Roman Catholic Church, we need to consider what the Gospels say regarding apostleship, and how Peter relates to that.

Peter’s denial of Jesus, as proclaimed by his master, is one of the most interesting aspects of the portraits of Peter we find in the Synoptic Gospels. Peter is determined throughout that he will stand by Jesus till the end - yet he denies him exactly as Jesus said. The parallel narratives of Matthew 26, Mark 14 and Luke 22 all make it very clear exactly what happens! This is one of those narratives that proves that Peter is as much a man as any. His love for Jesus is quashed by his desire for self-preservation, and the shock of Jesus’ death. Yet Jesus is still weighing heavy on his mind. Peter is the only apostle named directly in Matthew’s account, in Mark he is mentioned as the only person these words of Jesus were said to, whilst in Luke the same thing happens. Peter's prominence is clear. This is Peter as a man, a key player in the narrative. As Oscar Cullman puts it, ‘he who tried to turn Jesus from the way of suffering, and denied him at the decisive moment of the Passion story, was the first one who, after easter, grasped the necessity of this offence’. Peter acted exactly as Jesus had predicted - but is honored by God regardless. The man who is most reported as denying Jesus becomes a key part of the early church.

At the Resurrection of Jesus, Peter again plays a pivotal role. In the earliest account - Mark - he is the one that the women are charged to tell what has happened to. In Luke, he is the first male disciple to run to the tomb, so keen is he to know more. The importance of Peter is stressed in this - Luke’s Gospel gives the favour of a special appearance of the Risen Christ: ‘they were saying, ‘The Lord has risen indeed, and he has appeared to Simon (Peter)!’. This is an honour reserved for Peter alone of all the apostles. And this is important. Lowe states, in his work on the primacy of Peter, that ‘the Apostles are primarily witnesses of the resurrection, and Peter above all its first witness’. Though he arguably ignores the female witnesses, it is clear that Peter functions in a particular way regarding the resurrection,. A conclusion is rapidly becoming obvious. As Lowe says succinctly; ‘we learn from the New Testament that Peter occupied a leading if not dominant position among the disciples of Jesus’.

Since the birth of the church, there have been different interpretations of the role of Peter. Nowhere is this more pronounced than the difference between the Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions. However, to find a balance it is necessary to look at the pure evidence, the core of the message. As Lowe puts it, ‘it is possible to raise a mediating voice [between Catholic and Protestant views] without the certainty of derision’. Cullman gives us two assertions that result in a useful middle way, the mediating voice that Lowe proposes. He notes first of all that ‘it is a frequent of Protestant theologians that they do not sufficiently consider in their theological application the continuation of the saying, in which Jesus clearly speaks of the leadership of the Church’. This is a fair observation. Yet we must also remember the ambiguity of what the 'rock' is, and that it cannot be said with certainty to be Peter himself. However, as Cullman goes on to note, echoing what the New Testament actually says; 

‘only the original Church was led by this apostle, and he led it only in its earliest period. For as soon as the foundation for this leadership is laid, Peter will give it up’

The logical, actual reality of Peter’s rock-man status is merely that he lead the early church - it is not something that extends on throughout history. Peter’s role in the synoptic Gospels is thus most definitely that of leadership, but not of a leadership that should flow on into history.

In conclusion, Peter has a clearly defined role in the synoptic Gospels. This echoes the statement by E.P. Sanders and Margaret Davies, that ‘Matthew, Mark and Luke are called ‘synoptic’ because they tell basically the same story in the same sequence, and often in the same precise wording’. We should thus expect a consensus! Peter is the leader of the twelve disciples, and is tasked by Jesus with the continuation of the church. This is borne out historically in his leadership of the primitive church in Jerusalem. Peter has a great deal to show modern readers through both his devotion to Jesus, and his very human characteristics. The texts speak of both of these aspects very frequently! Peter’s role also encompasses the role of spokesperson. The closing words of Lowe serve well here to underline the way that the actual role of Peter - as presented to us in the synoptic Gospels - has been obscured by both Roman Catholic views of the Apostolic Succession, and Protestant polemics against an important figure of church history; 

‘St. Peter has suffered because of the contentions which have clustered round his name. The man has become a pawn in the polemical game, and the rock a stumbling block’ 

When two millennia of tradition and polemic are placed in their proper light, and the synoptic Gospels allowed to speak, we end with an excellent individual, a key part of the early church, and a true Saint. It is my understanding that Peter is a vital figure to understand, and a role model for bold faith (even when he is being obnoxious, perhaps). I hope to explore in the future whether or not he actually went to Rome (this is historically not clear), but from this brief set of observations I hope to have shown that Peter, whilst important, should not be seen as the foundation of the Church in the way that the Roman Catholic Church would say. Rather, it is faith in Jesus, the 'apostolic deposit' that is the Gospel, which founds, sustains and preserves the Church, by the power of the Holy Spirit and the Grace of God.

______________________

Thanks for reading - keep your eyes peeled for future posts on Peter, and Catholic/Protestant dialogue/comparison.

Brief Bibliography

The Bible (NRSV)

J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, (Continuum, 2000)

John Lowe, St. Peter, (Clarendon Press, 1956)

John Calvin, Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - volume 1, (Baker Books, 2009)

Morna D. Hooker, The Gospel according to St. Mark, (A&C Black, 1993)

Oscar Cullmann, Peter - Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, (SCM Press, 1962)
E. P. Sanders and Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels, (SCM Press, 1989)

______________________

If you are new to this blog, or have been reading it for a while, I'd love to connect with you through Twitter, or you might like to 'like' my Facebook page.