|
|---|
| Jn 21:15-17 | Jesus: feed/tend (all of) my sheep | |
| Lk 12:41-48 | appointed, faithful steward | |
| Lk 22:32 | Jesus: "...strengthen your brethren" | |
| Lk 22:32 | Jesus: prays for faith of Peter only | |
|
|---|
| Mt 10:2 | Peter always first in list of Apostles | Peter heads the list of the Apostles. And here he is literally called "first" by another apostle, even though Jesus did not select him first. Moreover, his name occurs more often in the New Testament than all other apostles combined. |
| Mk 3:16-19 | Peter always first in list of Apostles | |
| Lk 6:14-16 | Peter always first in list of Apostles | |
| AA 1:13 | Peter always first in list of Apostles | |
| AA 1:13-26 | heads election of new Apostle | |
| Lk 9:32 | Peter and companions | |
| Mk 16:7 | Peter and companions | |
|
|---|
| Mt 18:21 | Peter speaks for Apostles | |
| Mt 16:15-16 | Peter speaks for Apostles | Jesus asks a question of all ("you all"; Gk. humeis, plural) the apostles (about their belief, i.e., the belief of His proto-church), but only Peter answers. Rather than rebuke Peter or press the others to answer as well, Jesus blesses Peter (alone) and proclaims that Peter has received a revelation from God the Father. The not-so-subtle implication is that the other apostles are to listen to Peter.
Contrast this with the exchange two verses earlier (Mt 16:13-14) where Jesus asks the group a question (about the beliefs outside this circle, outside his direct teachings) and the apostles respond individually. |
| Mt 16:17 | Jesus accepts Peter's leadership | Importantly, Jesus accepts Peter's answer (for all) and praises him. |
| Mk 8:29 | Peter speaks for Apostles | |
| Lk 8:45 | Peter speaks for Apostles | |
| Lk 12:41 | Peter speaks for Apostles | |
| Jn 6:68-71 | Peter speaks for Apostles | Jesus asks a question of all the apostles, Peter answers for all, and Jesus accepts Peter's answer. |
| AA 2:14 | led Apostles in preaching | |
| AA 4:1-13 | Jews consider Peter the leader | |
| AA 8:14 | Peter, John sent by others [1]verse used to challenge Catholic teaching | Some Protestants say this shows Peter was subject to the other apostles (or at least not above them, at best a first among equals). Yet, the context is not clear. The Gospels show Jesus favored Peter ("upon this rock"; "to thee the keys") and John ("the disciple whom Jesus loved"). Peter had demonstrated miraculous powers. What better means to strengthen an important region than to send two top apostles? A modern analogy might be a corporate sales meeting attended by top management to discuss an important new customer. After much discussion, the President and the V.P. of R&D and are identified as the most appropriate representatives to visit the customer and strengthen the relationship. Would the company want to say it acted with unanimity? Yes! Were the two sent with the blessings of the management team? Yes. Does that mean that the President is subordinate to the other Vice Presidents? No, of course not. Does it mean that the President doesn't have overall authority? Of course not. |
| AA 11:1-18 | Peter held to account [1]verse used to challenge Catholic teaching | Some Protestants claim that this shows Peter being held accountable by the church in Jerusalem, or that his reproachment shows nobody thought he was infallible. But such an interpretation goes way beyond the text indeed. Those contending with Peter have much in common with the troublesome Judaizers. Moreover, Peter's response is authoritative and brings them (all?) back into alignment with the church. Note also that Peter does not use Scripture to make his case. Peter's authoritative explanation trumps their faulty reasoning, which was obviously formed through their private understanding of Scripture. Nor do they then turn to scripture to confirm or test Peter's explanation. Rather than showing Peter as a mere functionary, these verses are consistent with Peter's pre-eminence and the prideful actions of contentious believers who hold themselves out as superior to their rightful shepherds. |
| Mk 8:33 | get behind me Satan [1]verse used to challenge Catholic teaching | Some Protestants hope this shows that Peter couldn't be the head apostle after such a rebuke from Jesus. But Peter is not literally the fallen angel, Satan. So what does Our Lord mean? Although the Greek (Σατανᾶ) is commonly translated and understood as "Satan," it can also be translated as "adversary" or "opposer". Some Greek versions have Σατανᾶ (the Σ implying a formal name), still many others have σατανᾶ. Young's Literal Translation Bible (Protestant) renders this passage as "Get behind me, Adversary."
Our Lord's "get behind me" is seen as an order for Peter to follow Jesus. This is something that Jesus would not say to Satan, but instead "Go thy way" as "into everlasting fire," for Our Lord knows that Satan cannot be a follower. But it would be appropriate to say to an apostle who found himself in misguided opposition to God's plan. For Peter, seeing the world as a man, did not yet fully understand the divine plan. |
| Mt 16:23 | get behind me Satan [1]verse used to challenge Catholic teaching | See above discussion of parallel passage Mark 8:33 |
|
|---|
| Mt 16:16 | Peter's first infallible statement | |
| Mt 16:17 | Jesus confirms Peter's statement | |
| AA 5:2-11 | first anathema; God affirms | |
| AA 8:14-24 | 1st to recognize/refute heresy | |
| AA 10:9-28 | catholicism revealed to Peter | Although Paul is commonly referred to as the "Apostle to the Gentiles," it was Peter that received this charter first. One might think of the situation as follows: Peter, as steward (executive), was setting policy; Paul, the missionary (worker), was chief implementer. |
| AA 10:44-48 | Peter orders Gentile baptism | |
| AA 15:7-12 | Peter's leadership at 1st council | There is "much disputing" until Peter speaks. He lays out both his revelation and the logic behind it. Notice how Peter's speech is the pivot of the council marking the end of the dispute. When Peter is done speaking, all disputing immediately ends ("and all the multitude held their peace"). All susbsequent council activity is in support of Peter's statement.
Notice also that only Peter invokes God's intention (vss. 7-9) with immediacy. Even James seems to recognize that Peter speaks for God (vs. 14) and he does not invoke God in the same way. |
| AA 15:19 | Judgment of James [1]verse used to challenge Catholic teaching | Protestants say this shows James as Peter's superior, but the context says otherwise. The Judaizers had a foothold in Jerusalem. James, as local bishop, would have known both the major antagonists and key pastoral issues. The Council would naturally look to him regarding implementation of Peter's policy. In vss. 19-21 James voices pastoral concerns. Perhaps deference was also given because he hosted the Council. And the letter invokes Council authority (vs. 23), not that of James.
Protestants claim that the word "sentence" [KJV] or "judgment" [NIV, RSV] (vs. 19; Strongs, def. 5) shows James as over Peter. But a valid (and perhaps, better) translation for κρίνω is "preference" (see Strongs, def. 2) or "opinion" (def. 3), changing the tenor dramatically. The Vulgate has "judgment" (judico), without intending to downplay Peter's role, of course. And "judgment" is reasonable, if describing James' pastoral preference and/or his local authority. |
| Ga 1:18 | convert Paul visits chief Apostle | |
| Ga 2:11-14 | Cephas accused of hypocrisy [1]verse used to challenge Catholic teaching | Here Paul accuses Peter of hypocrisy, not false teaching. Catholics don't believe popes are sinless, but some hold Peter guiltless due to his good intentions. However, it is commonly held that St. Peter was guilty of venial imprudence.
Moreover, St. Paul's charge is lessened even further because Paul himself apparently acted in a way similar to Peter (followed Jewish ceremonial law) many times: he circumcised Timothy (AA 16:1-3); made Temple offerings (AA 24:17-18), shaved his head in Cenchrea; on St. James advice, he purified himself in the temple, not to offend the Jews (AA 21:18-26). And Paul often proclaims his desire to do whatever it takes to bring souls to heaven. Are Peter's intentions any less honorable? See also Paul Rebukes Peter and "I withstood Cephas". |
|
|---|
| Mt 16:19 | Jesus gives Peter the keys to heaven | The keys are given to Peter only, in the presence of the other apostles. Protestants often ignore the keys or co-mingle them with the binding/loosing powers which are also given to all the apostles in Mt 18:18 (thereby hoping to diminish the uniqueness and importance of the keys). But even if admitting to the keys, Protestants may try to diminsh the importance of the keys and binding/loosing powers, again with the hope of minimizing the importance of Peter, the Church, the ministerial priesthood, etc. |
| Mt 16:18 | Peter is the foundation | |
| Mt 17:26 | Jesus pays tax for himself and Peter | |
| Lk 24:34 | risen Jesus appears to Peter first | |
| AA 2:38-41 | Peter receives first converts | |
| AA 3:6-7 | Peter works first miracle | |
| AA 9:40 | Peter first after Jesus to raise dead | |
| Mt 18:18 | binding/loosing power [1]verse used to challenge Catholic teaching | Protestants often use this to claim Peter received nothing special in Mt 16:19. Such an argument ignores the significance of the "keys" that Jesus gave to Peter only. Indeed, it ignores much of what happens in Mt 16 (see above) which positions Peter uniquely as the head of the proto-Church. Protestants also may try to substitute the authority of the Church for the role of Peter. That is, they will claim Jesus is merely giving (some) authority to his church (in general) at various times without making anything special of Peter. Whereas Catholics wholly support the Magisterial authority of the Church that is established here (as well as the unique role and authority of Peter plainly set forth in Mt 16). |
|
|---|
| Mt 16:19 | Jesus give Peter the keys | In a biblical sign of granting stewardship authority, Jesus gives Peter "the keys." |
| Is 22:22 | keys assigned to officeholder | The "keys" are not only given to the steward, but the keys are symbolically worn "upon the shoulder" so that others will see and know of the steward's authority. |
| Rv 1:18 | keys as symbol of authority | |
| Mt 16:15-17 | Jesus accepts Peter's answer for all | Jesus asks a question of all ("you all" see Gk. humeis, plural) the apostles (about their belief, i.e., the belief of His proto-church), but only Peter answers. Rather than rebuke Peter or press the others to answers as well, Jesus blesses Peter (alone) and proclaims that Peter has received a revelation from God the Father. |
| Mt 16:18 | Jesus to build church upon Peter | |
| Jn 1:42 | Simon is Cephas (Aramaic: rock) | |
| Mt 16:18 | Simon is Petras (Greek: rock) | |
| Mt 16:19 | Jesus gives Peter power to bind/loose | |
| Mt 17:26 | Jesus pays tax for himself and Peter | |
| Lk 5:3-4 | Peter's boat prefigures Church | Why is it mentioned that there were two ships; that one of them was Simon Peter's, that Christ went into that one, sat down in it, and sitting he taught out of that ship? No doubt, answer many of the ancient commentators, to show that the Church was figured by the bark (barque) of Peter, and that in it is the chair of Christ, a permanent authority, prefigured by the OT chair of Moses. Literally, the true word of God sits there. |
