Saint Peter, 5th or 6th century icon from St. Catherine's Monastery at Sinai.
Posted on 09/07/2009 1:58:55 PM PDT by NYer
In my home library (overflowing, alas, the eight-foot bookshelves lining my home-office walls into double rows on the shelves and spills out into stacks covering the floor) are a couple dozen or so books by Eastern Orthodox writers, at least two of which are dedicated to the exploring the meaning of Peter's primacy and the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
Some Protestants are surprised to discover this, because they have the idea that the Eastern Orthodox "deny the primacy" of Peter and/or of Rome; but this is not the case. The nature and applicability of the Petrine and Roman primacies is certainly a subject of controversy, not only between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, but also to an extent among different schools of Eastern Orthodox thought; but the fact of Peter's preeminence both in the New Testament and in the tradition of the early Church, as well as the special role of Rome in the early Church, is so clear that there is little question of denying it altogether.
In this series of posts I will briefly explore the New Testament basis for the Petrine fact, i.e., Peter's preeminence or primacy in the New Testament. My intent for now is to maintain the following:
Peter's preeminence and leadership role among the Twelve is seen in many different ways throughout the New Testament evidence, not just in one or two books (possibly indicating the special interest of a particular community), but in every major strand of NT tradition (Pauline, Synoptic as well as Acts, Johannine, and, within the Synoptic tradition, in "triple tradition" [all three Synoptics], "double tradition" [Matthew and Luke], and material unique to Matthew, Mark and Luke).
This primacy is different in kind from the preeminences of other prominent apostles (i.e., James and John on the one hand, Paul on the other). It is not merely a function of, e.g., Peter's outspoken personality, or some other informal consideration. It is rooted in the choice of Jesus Christ, who indicated his intention for Peter to have a unique foundational role in the new People of God, a representative headship among the apostles, and a uniquely privileged relationship to Jesus himself in the kingdom.
The Petrine fact, and in particular Peter's role as rock on which the church is built in Matthew 16, has for some time been widely recognized by Evangelical and Eastern Orthodox scholarship. Major challenges remain in unpacking how this Petrine fact is best understood historically and ecclesiologically, what significance it is understood to have for the early church, the church Fathers of the East and West, the Great Schism, and the Protestant Reformation — questions that have been debated for centuries and which have perhaps remain to be fully explored. (At this point I must resist the temptation to get sidetracked with important caveats for my Orthodox and Protestant brethren; bear with me.) But the Petrine fact itself I take to be, as it were, bedrock and ecumenical New Testament data.
Note: In this discussion I gladly acknowledge my debt to Joseph Ratzinger's Called to Communion as well as the Eastern Orthodox contributors to John Meyendorff's The Primacy of Peter and Orthodox writer Olivier Clement's You Are Peter, among other sources. (As the discussion progresses I may return to this post and add additional sources as needed.)
In coming posts I will explore some of the biblical evidence regarding the Petrine fact, and perhaps try to offer some light on how it is to be understood.
(SDG)
Continued from Part 1
Let's take a look at some of the NT evidence regarding the Petrine fact.
One significant motif has to do with Peter's primacy among the Twelve as the first witness to the resurrection. Strikingly, Peter is singled out in the first known Christian credal formula, the pre-Pauline resurrection formula of 1 Corinthians 15, which states, "He appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve." (This is part of a confessional statement which Paul professes to have passed on from those who taught it to him, using the technical terms "received" and "delivered": "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve." Note the formulaic double use of "in accordance with the scriptures.")
This special appearance first to Peter is also attested in Luke, where the eleven bear witness, "The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!" (Luke 24:34). An echo of this special attention to Peter can be heard in Mark's resurrection material, where the angels tell the women to "go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you" (Mark 16:7). John's resurrection material gives Peter a prominence in other ways, which I will address later.
As Ratzinger points out, Peter's privilege as first apostolic witness to the resurrection, attested by Paul in the pre-Pauline confession of faith recorded in 1 Corinthians 15, is particularly striking in light of Paul's emphasis on "the essence of apostleship as witness to the Resurrection of Christ" (Called to Communion, p. 49). Paul's claim to be an apostle is directly tied to his claim to have seen the risen Christ ("Am I not an apostle? Have I not see Christ?" 1 Cor 9:1).
Compare also Acts 1, where Peter himself sets the criteria for Judas' replacement in the apostolic ministry: "So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us — one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection." Witnessing and bearing witness to the resurrected Christ was the essence of apostleship.
Interestingly, while in some places Paul emphatically denies any inferiority to other apostles, in 1 Corinthians 15, in the very passage where he attests the credal tradition that the Lord appeared first to Peter, Paul humbly declares that, after all his other appearances, "Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God" (1 Cor 15:8-9).
If Paul's late resurrection appearance makes him "untimely born," "last of all" and "the least of the apostles," by implication the Lord's appearance first to Peter makes him in effect the first-born among the apostles — a role given credal or confessional significance in the very early pre-Pauline tradition that Paul preserves. (I am not arguing that it makes him superior to the other apostles, any more than Paul's "untimely" status correlates with inferiority.)
As mentioned above, John's resurrection narrative also attests Peter's unique role in regard to the risen Christ, in two ways.
First, when Peter and the beloved disciple run to the sepulchre, the beloved disciple outruns Peter, arriving at the sepulchre first. Then, however, he waits outside until Peter has arrived and entered, and only then enters himself, at which point he sees and believes (John 20:3-8). John's Gospel gives the "beloved disciple" a primacy of one sort, seen here in the fact that he outruns Peter, but then Peter's primacy is also given its place as he waits outside for Peter, and only enters and "believes" following Peter.
Second, when Jesus appears to the Twelve at the Sea of Tiberias, he makes a charcoal fire (the same term used for the fire at which Peter warmed himself on the eve of the crucifixion, when he denied Jesus) and questions Peter thrice about his love, responding each time with the commission to tend/feed Jesus' sheep/lambs. Peter's triple declaration of love, and Jesus' triple commission of Peter as shepherd of his sheep, parallels and cancels Peter's well-known (attested in all four Gospels) triple denials, solemnly restoring Peter by triple commision to his place of honor.
In this connection it may be significant that Jesus' first two queries about Peter's love use the term agape and that he first asks if Peter loves him "more than these"; but Peter determinedly replies with the word phileo prompting Jesus to ask the third time using phileo (and receiving the same word in Peter's third reply). (There is room for question here because the elevated Christian meaning of agape was a development in early Christian vocabulary, reflecting the need for a word corresponding to a new conceptual world, and like other words which acquire new meanings it is not always clear in early usage whether the new meaning is fully in place yet.)
If it is significant, then it seems likely that the humiliating experience of the triple denials, of fleeing while the beloved disciple followed, has cured Peter of making grandiose claims about his devotion to Jesus. As seen in the race to the sepulchre, Peter is not necessarily the disciple most driven by love for Jesus; that would be the beloved disciple. Nevertheless, just as it is Peter who first enters the sepulchre, it is to Peter that Jesus gives the solemn threefold commission as vice shepherd under the Good Shepherd.
More to come.
Ping!
Thanks -great post.
Please keep posting what this fellow writes. If, as I suspect, he relies on Meyendorf and especially Clement as speaking for Orthodoxy, it will be sufficient to pronounce what he writes nonsense. Hopefully, the content of the posts will improve on this, a thoroughly false comment at least insofar as Orthodoxy is concerned:
“The Petrine fact, and in particular Peter’s role as rock on which the church is built in Matthew 16, has for some time been widely recognized by Evangelical and Eastern Orthodox scholarship.”
But we’ll see.
A statement which can be considered to be true only so long as one omits what the Eastern Orthodox have considered it to be.
Excellent post. Thanks.
“...what the Eastern Orthodox have considered it to be.”
:)
Heart of the Church (St. Peter in Words and Stone)
The Early Church Fathers on The Primacy of Peter/Rome (Catholic/Orthodox Caucus)
Saint Peter As Seen by His Successor (extraordinary document from B16 on his preaching and papacy)
Saint Peter and the Vatican, the Legacy of the Popes
Saint Peter and The Vatican - Legacy of the Popes
You write:
“If, as I suspect, he relies on Meyendorf and especially Clement as speaking for Orthodoxy, it will be sufficient to pronounce what he writes nonsense.”
Because...?
Who arbitrates which Orthodox theologians legitimately speak for Orthodoxy, and which suffice to implicate anyone who relies on them in nonsense by association?
Which contemporary Orthodox scholars would you consider as legitimately speaking for Orthodoxy, and, again, what is your criterion for saying so?
This should be entertaining...I’ve seen all three!
Primacy Wars, The Primacy Stikes Back, & The Return of the Primacy! B-)
“Because...?”
They were both Paris School Westernizers, especially Clement. The Paris School thought, which was based in expat Russian theology, has been roundly rejected. Clement, by the way, was a close friend of +JPII.
“Who arbitrates which Orthodox theologians legitimately speak for Orthodoxy, and which suffice to implicate anyone who relies on them in nonsense by association?”
The consensus patrum.
“Which contemporary Orthodox scholars would you consider as legitimately speaking for Orthodoxy, and, again, what is your criterion for saying so?”
Read the Fathers. Otherwise, try the writings of Fr. George Dragas as well as the Elder Cleopas, Peter Pappas, Panagiotis Christou and anything by Met. John of Pergamum. They are all soundly based in the Fathers and the councils and not the speculative and innovative nonsense of the Russians of Paris.
I also meant to add Fr. John Romanides and Alexandre Kalomiros.
At the same time, Office is attended by Love. And Peter (office) questions this at the end of John:
John 21:20-22
Peter turning about, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also leaned on his breast at supper, and said: Lord, who is he that shall betray thee?
Him therefore when Peter had seen, he saith to Jesus: Lord, and what shall this man do? (i.e., what does love have to do with administration?)
Jesus saith to him: So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? follow thou me. (i.e., love will inform your office till I return. You are inseperable)
So, we see another example of the thumbprint of God upon the Church. The Church is no mere bureaucracy - and Peter is no mere Apostle - it is composed of men (Peter) and God (Deus est caritas). Jesus promises Peter that he will be attended to by Love (God), and he, Peter, shall do Love's bidding in following the Lord.
Praise God.
No one denies Peter’s prominent role in the NT.
But there is a huge leap from ‘Peter was a leader in the early church’ to ‘Peter was the Vicar of Christ, and passed it down to his successors’.
When the 12 disputed among themselves who was the greatest, Jesus didn’t answer, “Peter”. Instead, he made it clear the question itself was based in false ideas.
No one reading the NT or the early church fathers would conclude that Peter reigned as Vicar (”a person who is authorized to perform the functions of another; deputy”) of Christ.
No one denies Peter’s prominent role in the NT.
But there is a huge leap from ‘Peter was a leader in the early church’ to ‘Peter was the Vicar of Christ, and passed it down to his successors’.
When the 12 disputed among themselves who was the greatest, Jesus didn’t answer, “Peter”. Instead, he made it clear the question itself was based in false ideas.
No one reading the NT or the early church fathers would conclude that Peter reigned as Vicar (”a person who is authorized to perform the functions of another; deputy”) of Christ.
Now That’s just silly...one may not agree that the “keys” gave Peter primacy, but it is simply dishonest to maintain a “huge leap” for that primacy.
And citing the character of servant is simply irrelevant...
“one may not agree that the “keys” gave Peter primacy, but it is simply dishonest to maintain a “huge leap” for that primacy.”
No, I am not dishonest.
Peter’s fellow Apostles never show any sign of believing Peter was above them. Paul explicitly denies it. There is simply no scriptural support for the idea that if Peter says it, then it goes.
Nor do the church fathers give the Bishop of Rome authority over the other bishops. For hundreds of years, attempts to claim it were shot down.
An honest look at both the NT and writing of the church fathers shows no sign that Peter was made “Vicar of Christ”.
Please allow me to disagree with you without suggesting I’m lying to do so.
The significance of the keys is explained more fully in Matthew 18:
“15 If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. 20 For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”
Not exactly Peter over all others, is it?
Why should he?
You just got done saying this:
An honest look at both the NT and writing of the church fathers shows no sign that Peter was made “Vicar of Christ”.So disagreeing with YOUR interpretation is not honest, yet one sentence later:
Please allow me to disagree with you without suggesting I’m lying to do so.
LOL
That's rich.
I regret your discomfiture, but in my estimation your rhetorical flourishes constitute falsehood.
You’ve had the Catholic view explained to you ad nauseum... you simply refuse to give it any standing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.