Luke 22:24

[challenger]

Hi : ). Why did the apostles argue about who was the greatest in Luke 22:24? I can’t figure out a good apologetic to this (possibly because I’ve been up all night), so I just thought I’d ask here.

 

[deb1]

My opinion is that they argued because they were human and we humans tend to be full of such faults as pride and egotism. What is ironic is that this conversation between the disciples occures during the Last supper. In a few short hours they will all run away in fear.

 

[Fergal]

I would say for the very same reason as is given in Lk 24:13
***“oculi autem illorum tenebantur ne eum agnoscerent.” ***which means "But their eyes were held, that they should not know him."

Something prevented them from recognising him. What that something was could be pride, selfishness or an exagerrated sense of closeness to Christ.

When we truly love someone, we try to imitate them and try very much to be close to them. If they are great in our eyes we want to be as great to maintain this imitation and closeness.

They recognised his greatness through the wonders and miracles they witnessed, whilst with Him, but they failed to recognise him in their hearts. This then led them to understand Christ as someone great in the world and in imitation of him they too considered worldy greatness a thing to be achieved. After Pentecost, however, their minds were opened and their hearts filled with the Holy Spirit. Truth and wisdom prevailed. hence almost all accepted martyrdom.

 

[challenger]

I actually meant, “Why did they argue if they recognized Peter as the chief apostle?”

 

[Quebec2005]

challenger:

I actually meant, “Why did they argue if they recognized Peter as the chief apostle?”

Nothing says that Peter was recognized at this time as the chief apostle. Jesus said that His Church will be built upon this rock. Maybe they did not understand what this phrase implied. Or maybe they did not agree with that nomination.

Strangely, the verse you’re quoting takes place at the Last Supper, but in Matthew and Mark, the same conversation (with some differences, like the involvment of James and John’s mother) takes place soon after the affirmation of Peter and the Transfiguration. We must remember that the Gospels were not meant to be historical, but to convey a message. Maybe Luke’s intent was to stress that the sins of others (as the treason of Judas) should not serve to boast ourselves because we also are susceptible to fall. And we know that Peter denied Christ. Mark and Matthew probably wanted to put more emphasis on the royalty of Christ.

 

[challenger]

I have to disagree that the gospels were not meant to be historical… catholicintl.com/catholicissues/pbc.htm

 

[deb1]

challenger:

I actually meant, “Why did they argue if they recognized Peter as the chief apostle?”

I think that the answer is **still **because they were human and full of faults. Just because they accepted Peter as their leader doesn’t mean that each one didn’t think that he was greater then the rest. Actually, being leader doesn’t mean that you are greater, it means that you have certain skills and attributes that makes putting you in such a position advantageous. As a side note, Peter wasn’t even the disciple that Jesus loved the best, according to the Gospels, Jesus loved John most, but Jesus still put Peter in charge.

 

[deb1]

challenger:

I have to disagree that the gospels were not meant to be historical… catholicintl.com/catholicissues/pbc.htm

I think that it depends on your definition of historical. All the gospels are correct and true, but each one was written from the point of view of its authors. This means that different aspects in each one are emphasized. Also, each gospel was written for a specific audience and you have to keep that in mind. If you view the gospels as strictly historical then you will run into the problem that sometimes events are mentioned in a different order from one gospel to the next. Atheists try to use this method of pointing out New Testament differences to confuse Christians, but the simple answer is that the disciples were human and probably made some mistakes as to what order everthing occured. This doesn’t mean the gospels are false, just that the writers were human.

 

[challenger]

No, God was the author. I think it’s explicitly said in Providentissimus Deus. There can be no contradictions or errors in Scripture.But thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut on Luke 22:24

 

[Fiat]

challenger:

Hi : ). Why did the apostles argue about who was the greatest in Luke 22:24? I can’t figure out a good apologetic to this (possibly because I’ve been up all night), so I just thought I’d ask here.

Dear Challenger:

In answer to the apostles question as to which of them was the greatest, Jesus says that the chief among them shall be the one that serves (Luke 22:27). Five verses later, in Luke 22:32, Jesus tells Peter that He will pray for him that he may strengthen his brothers. This seems to be a tremendous task of service which Our Lord entrusted to Peter.

I hope this helps.

Fiat

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Was the the headship of Peter revealed to the apostles yet – before their argument? Or did their argument occur prior to Christ choosing Peter?

I’m not clear on that.

Thanks.

 

[deb1]

challenger:

No, God was the author. I think it’s explicitly said in Providentissimus Deus. There can be no contradictions or errors in Scripture.But thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut on Luke 22:24

Yes, but God worked through the apostles.

 

[Quebec2005]

challenger:

No, God was the author. I think it’s explicitly said in Providentissimus Deus. There can be no contradictions or errors in Scripture.But thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut on Luke 22:24

You are right. But that does not mean that there is no differences between the Gospels. That is a fact. The Resurrection, for one, is not told the same way in all four Gospels. In Matthew, Mary of Magdalena and the women goes to the Sepulcher, when an Angel descends from Heaven to say that Christ has resurrected and that his disciples should wait for Him in Galilee. Then Jesus appears to them. In Mark, there is no earthquake and the Angel is inside the sepulcher where he says the same thing. But they do not see Jesus. In Luke, there is two angels that appear, not one. He says the same thing. Jesus does not appear and Peter goes to the tomb and is astonished. In John, the women go to the tomb and see that the stone as been put away. They flee away thinking the Lord’s body has been stolen, except Mary of Magdala who sees Christ. She tells the Apostles what she saw. Peter and John go to the tomb and see that it is empty.

What should we do with these differences ? Say that the Gospels are not true ? Of course not ! Christ lives ! What is important is the message, not the way it was written. So the stories can differ, but the message is still the same.

That is what I meant when I said that the Gospel were not meant to be historical. This is not a treatise of history, but a text that is meant to convey theological truth. That is why we have the Church to help us interpret the Scriptures.