The Leader, Peter?

[Curious_Seed]

:idea:

There is inference of St. Peter as being the leader of the disciples present.

Other than the words of Jesus, is there any declaration or proclamation or statement, by reference in the New Testament, supporting the inference?

Thank you, to all who choose to reply !

 

[Belloc_Fan]

There are five major ways of knowing this from Scripture:
I. In Luke 22:24-32, Jesus tells the Apostle which of them is the greatest, and what it means to be the greatest:

24 A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

In other words, the question arises who the greatest of the Disciples is. Jesus says that the greatest is the one who will serve the others, and then tells Peter that once he has turned back (from betraying Christ) his job is strengthen the other Eleven. He tells this only to Peter.

In fact, it’s even more incredible in Greek, because Jesus says “Satan desires to sift you (plural) like wheat, but I have prayed for you (singular), Simon.” All of the Disciples, not just Peter, chickened out. And Satan was after them all. But Jesus chose Peter for a special role, and prayed for him particularly, and then entrusted him to take care of the other Disciples.

II. Jesus tells Peter that it is upon him that He (Jesus) will build the Church.
This is in Matthew 16:17-19. He changes Simon’s name to Peter, which means “Rock,” and He says to him, “Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jona, …] And I tell you, you are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” He then promises Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power to bind and loosen sins, and promises that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church built upon Peter.

In changing Simon’s name to Peter, we see something very similar to what He did in changing Abram’s name to Abraham in Genesis 17:3-8. It was a change in Abraham’s status, as he became the earthly head of God’s covenantial people. The same thing happens with Simon Peter in the New Covenant. In giving Peter the Keys, Jesus recalls the palace administrator, who served as a mouthpiece of the king (see Isaiah 22:20-24 for a very similar “Keys” discussion). The difference is that instead of having the Keys to the House of David, as Eliakim did (enabling him to speak on behalf of the king, as requested – 2 Kings 18 has a good example of this).

Christ depicts Himself also as the eternal holder of the Keys, in Heaven (Revelation 1:18). So Jesus has bestowed upon Peter some earthly echo of the infinite Heavenly authority Jesus Christ Himself possesses in Heaven.

III. Similar to the last point, Jesus depicts Himself as “the Good Shepherd” In John 10:11-19. He is, in other words, the perfect Godly model for all pastors (“Pastor” just being Latin for “Shepherd,” after all). Peter calls Jesus “the Chief Shepherd” in 1 Peter 5:4. But God also promised to provide us with “Shepherds after [His] own Heart” in Jeremiah 3:15. And right before the Good Shepherd parable, Jesus gave another very similar parable, the Parable of the Sheep-Gate. Read John 10:1-10. There, Jesus describes Himself as the Gate through which another shepherd will pass. He says in John 10:9, " I AM the Gate;" and in John 10:2, “The one who enters by the Gate is the shepherd of the sheep.” So He’s talking about someone besides Himself who will enter “by the Gate” (that is, be called personally by Christ) to become the shepherd of the sheep. From Jesus’ explanation of the Good Shepherd parable, which immediately follows, we know that the “sheep” include all Christians everywhere, both Jewish and Gentile (John 10:16).

Flash forward to John 21:15-17. Jesus asks Peter three questions (in English, roughly, “Do you love Me more than these?” “Do you love Me?” and “Do you like Me?”), and after Peter answers, Jesus instructs him: “Feed My lambs,” “Tend My sheep,” and “Feed My sheep.” In other words, the one entered by the Gate, who was called to be shepherd by the Good Shepherd Himself, was Peter. And note that in John 21:15, Jesus contrasts Peter’s love with the love of the other Disciples, by asking, “Do you love Me more than these?”

 

[Belloc_Fan]

IV. Jesus Christ, as God, bears a special relationship with the Father. He never speaks of us and Him as “We” or “Us.” He says “My Father” or “Your Father,” (signalling that God is Father to us in a different way than He is Father to Christ), but never “Our Father” (in the Lord’s Prayer, He’s telling us how to pray). The only Disciple He ever speaks of as “Us,” meaning Jesus and an Apostle, is Peter. It’s in Matthew 17:27. The Jewish authorities are collecting the Temple tax, and Jesus teaches that as children of God, they need not pay it, but then says: “But so that we may not cause offense, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.”

We know from Matthew 17:24 that the tax was two-drachma apiece. So Jesus is making it absolutely clear that “Jesus and Peter” are a unit in a way that “Jesus and the Apostles” are not. He doesn’t refer to the other Apostles as “We” or “Us,” and He didn’t pay their Temple tax. This, by the way, is why popes often speak in the third-person (royalty and newspaper editors have imitated this practice, thinking it’s just to sound fancy, but it actually was because Jesus was giving Peter a special authority to speak on behalf of Christ, as a “We”).

V. Scripture treats Peter as something bigger than a regular Disciple. Look at the lists of the Apostles in Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, and Luke 6:13-16. What you’ll notice is that Judas is the last one mentioned on all three lists: it’s because he’s in a special place of dishonor. And Peter is the first one mentioned every time. Other than that, the Ten in between Peter and Judas are in whatever random order the Gospel writer happens to put them. Even after Judas is gone, Peter still gets listed first (Acts 1:13).

There are two examples which show that this place of honor was a matter of kind, not degree. On Easter Sunday, the angel instructs the women to go tell of the Resurrection to “His Disciples and Peter” (Mark 16:7). And on Pentecost Sunday, we hear that “Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd” (Acts 2:14). That is, Peter is treated not just as another of the Disciples, but as somehow a cut above.

More fascinating is the fact that there were Twelve Apostles at this point (Matthias was added in Acts 1:26). So the Twelve Apostles are also referred to as “Peter and the Eleven.” It’s like saying, “Buddy Holly and the Crickets” - it lets you know who’s in charge.

 

[Curious_Seed]

There are five major ways of knowing this from Scripture:
I. In Luke 22:24-32, Jesus tells the Apostle which of them is the greatest, and what it means to be the greatest:

In other words, the question arises who the greatest of the Disciples is. Jesus says that the greatest is the one who will serve the others, and then tells Peter that once he has turned back (from betraying Christ) his job is strengthen the other Eleven. He tells this only to Peter.

In fact, it’s even more incredible in Greek, because Jesus says “Satan desires to sift you (plural) like wheat, but I have prayed for you (singular), Simon.” All of the Disciples, not just Peter, chickened out. And Satan was after them all. But Jesus chose Peter for a special role, and prayed for him particularly, and then entrusted him to take care of the other Disciples.

II. Jesus tells Peter that it is upon him that He (Jesus) will build the Church.
This is in Matthew 16:17-19. He changes Simon’s name to Peter, which means “Rock,” and He says to him, “Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jona, …] And I tell you, you are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” He then promises Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power to bind and loosen sins, and promises that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church built upon Peter.

In changing Simon’s name to Peter, we see something very similar to what He did in changing Abram’s name to Abraham in Genesis 17:3-8. It was a change in Abraham’s status, as he became the earthly head of God’s covenantial people. The same thing happens with Simon Peter in the New Covenant. In giving Peter the Keys, Jesus recalls the palace administrator, who served as a mouthpiece of the king (see Isaiah 22:20-24 for a very similar “Keys” discussion). The difference is that instead of having the Keys to the House of David, as Eliakim did (enabling him to speak on behalf of the king, as requested – 2 Kings 18 has a good example of this).

Christ depicts Himself also as the eternal holder of the Keys, in Heaven (Revelation 1:18). So Jesus has bestowed upon Peter some earthly echo of the infinite Heavenly authority Jesus Christ Himself possesses in Heaven.

III. Similar to the last point, Jesus depicts Himself as “the Good Shepherd” In John 10:11-19. He is, in other words, the perfect Godly model for all pastors (“Pastor” just being Latin for “Shepherd,” after all). Peter calls Jesus “the Chief Shepherd” in 1 Peter 5:4. But God also promised to provide us with “Shepherds after [His] own Heart” in Jeremiah 3:15. And right before the Good Shepherd parable, Jesus gave another very similar parable, the Parable of the Sheep-Gate. Read John 10:1-10. There, Jesus describes Himself as the Gate through which another shepherd will pass. He says in John 10:9, " I AM the Gate;" and in John 10:2, “The one who enters by the Gate is the shepherd of the sheep.” So He’s talking about someone besides Himself who will enter “by the Gate” (that is, be called personally by Christ) to become the shepherd of the sheep. From Jesus’ explanation of the Good Shepherd parable, which immediately follows, we know that the “sheep” include all Christians everywhere, both Jewish and Gentile (John 10:16).

Flash forward to John 21:15-17. Jesus asks Peter three questions (in English, roughly, “Do you love Me more than these?” “Do you love Me?” and “Do you like Me?”), and after Peter answers, Jesus instructs him: “Feed My lambs,” “Tend My sheep,” and “Feed My sheep.” In other words, the one entered by the Gate, who was called to be shepherd by the Good Shepherd Himself, was Peter. And note that in John 21:15, Jesus contrasts Peter’s love with the love of the other Disciples, by asking, “Do you love Me more than these?”

Your answer is phenomenal and I am thankful; however, my question was conditional with respect to Jesus.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Your answer is phenomenal and I am thankful; however, my question was conditional with respect to Jesus.

D’oh! I totally glossed over that part. Part V still applies.

 

[Curious_Seed]

IV. Jesus Christ, as God, bears a special relationship with the Father. He never speaks of us and Him as “We” or “Us.” He says “My Father” or “Your Father,” (signalling that God is Father to us in a different way than He is Father to Christ), but never “Our Father” (in the Lord’s Prayer, He’s telling us how to pray). The only Disciple He ever speaks of as “Us,” meaning Jesus and an Apostle, is Peter. It’s in Matthew 17:27. The Jewish authorities are collecting the Temple tax, and Jesus teaches that as children of God, they need not pay it, but then says: “But so that we may not cause offense, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.”

We know from Matthew 17:24 that the tax was two-drachma apiece. So Jesus is making it absolutely clear that “Jesus and Peter” are a unit in a way that “Jesus and the Apostles” are not. He doesn’t refer to the other Apostles as “We” or “Us,” and He didn’t pay their Temple tax. This, by the way, is why popes often speak in the third-person (royalty and newspaper editors have imitated this practice, thinking it’s just to sound fancy, but it actually was because Jesus was giving Peter a special authority to speak on behalf of Christ, as a “We”).

V. Scripture treats Peter as something bigger than a regular Disciple. Look at the lists of the Apostles in Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, and Luke 6:13-16. What you’ll notice is that Judas is the last one mentioned on all three lists: it’s because he’s in a special place of dishonor. And Peter is the first one mentioned every time. Other than that, the Ten in between Peter and Judas are in whatever random order the Gospel writer happens to put them. Even after Judas is gone, Peter still gets listed first (Acts 1:13).

There are two examples which show that this place of honor was a matter of kind, not degree. On Easter Sunday, the angel instructs the women to go tell of the Resurrection to “His Disciples and Peter” (Mark 16:7). And on Pentecost Sunday, we hear that “Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd” (Acts 2:14). That is, Peter is treated not just as another of the Disciples, but as somehow a cut above.

More fascinating is the fact that there were Twelve Apostles at this point (Matthias was added in Acts 1:26). So the Twelve Apostles are also referred to as “Peter and the Eleven.” It’s like saying, “Buddy Holly and the Crickets” - it lets you know who’s in charge.

Thank you, for such a well-detailed reply.

So, I may conclude [other than the words of Jesus] that there is no statement or proclamation supporting Peter as the leader of the disciples present.

Your reply documents fully all the evidence of inference, but nothing declarative, in the New Testament.

 

[Nostradennis]

^Excellent points.^

 Here's another one (though implied) from Holy Writ:

                             Gospel of John

Chapter 20
1 AND on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalen cometh early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre; and she saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
2 She ran, therefore, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and saith to them: They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
3 Peter therefore went out, and that other disciple, and they came to the sepulchre.
4 And they both ran together, and that other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.
5 And when he stooped down, he saw the linen cloths lying; but yet he went not in.
6 Then cometh Simon Peter, following him, and went into the sepulchre, and saw the linen cloths lying,
7 And the napkin that had been about his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but apart, wrapped up into one place.
8 Then that other disciple also went in, who came first to the sepulchre: and he saw, and believed.

The Apostle John (disciple whom Jesus loved) as he calls himself here gives an eye witness account. John outran Peter to the empty tomb but did not go in out of respect to Peter who held the higher honor.

P.S. “Buddy Holly and the Crickets” Classic!

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Thank you, for such a well-detailed reply.

So, I may conclude [other than the words of Jesus] that there is no statement or proclamation supporting Peter as the leader of the disciples present.

Your reply documents fully all the evidence of inference, but nothing declarative, in the New Testament.

I think that the reference in Acts 2 to “Peter and the Eleven” is declarative, and I think Christ declares it, which is more than good enough for me. Beyond that, and the numerous declarations by Christ Himself, you’re right, most of it is descriptive. We see Peter operating as the leader in places like Acts 2 and Acts 15; we see the prophesy in John 10:16 (that the Jews and Gentiles will be united) done through Peter in Acts 10, we see John seemingly defer to Peter’s authority in John 20:3-8, by waiting outside the Tomb for Peter to arrive.

But if you’re looking for an explicit and unambiguous “org chart” of the NT Church, explaining exactly who held which positions (and not permitting the words of Jesus, for whatever reason), I’m pretty sure you won’t find anything to your satisfaction. There’s dispute even amongst Protestants over whether “bishop” and “presbyter” are different offices, because the New Testament didn’t *explain *the Church structure (since everyone reading the New Testament documents was already aware of the Church). They’re always just inferred, in the same way that an article in Politico might describe Obama in a way that clearly signals he is head of state, without ever explaining the American structure of government.

 

[Curious_Seed]

I think that the reference in Acts 2 to “Peter and the Eleven” is declarative, and I think Christ declares it, which is more than good enough for me. Beyond that, and the numerous declarations by Christ Himself, you’re right, most of it is descriptive. We see Peter operating as the leader in places like Acts 2 and Acts 15; we see the prophesy in John 10:16 (that the Jews and Gentiles will be united) done through Peter in Acts 10, we see John seemingly defer to Peter’s authority in John 20:3-8, by waiting outside the Tomb for Peter to arrive.

But if you’re looking for an explicit and unambiguous “org chart” of the NT Church, explaining exactly who held which positions (and not permitting the words of Jesus, for whatever reason), I’m pretty sure you won’t find anything to your satisfaction. There’s dispute even amongst Protestants over whether “bishop” and “presbyter” are different offices, because the New Testament didn’t *explain *the Church structure (since everyone reading the New Testament documents was already aware of the Church). They’re always just inferred, in the same way that an article in Politico might describe Obama in a way that clearly signals he is head of state, without ever explaining the American structure of government.

To be clear, I am not looking for an “org chart,” though I am sure we both would cite it if there were one naming Peter, as head.

Neither am I drawing any analogies to some Protestants disputing the offices of “bishop” and “presbyter,” as reasons for the New Testament not delineating a Church structure.

The reason I wanted to factor the words of Jesus, out of the leadership issue concerning Peter, is because any expression from our Lord is overwhelming, leaving it difficult to witness anything else (not that you asked me).

So, apart from the words of Jesus, **there is only inference **that Peter is to be the leader of the faithful, according to Holy Scripture.

 

[Heliotropium]

I think when Christ commands Peter to feed His lambs and His sheep it is a pretty clear indicator that He appoints Peter as the Shepherd of the flock. I dont understand why people look for Christ to use literal wording like “Peter your the Pope” and think that just because its not phrased this way in the Scriptures that they can therefore deny or ignore the very clear signs of Peters Authority over the rest. I mean to deny all of the clear signs like Peter being the only one that had his name changed (like Abram to Abraham, and others…a sign that they are leaders) , performed the first miracle Acts 3:6-8, proposed the election for another to take Judas bishopric (and note the Apostles did this because Peter advised it) Acts 1:21-26., preached the first sermon on the day of Pentecost Acts 2:14-36, admitted the first converts from judaism Acts 2:38-41 as well as paganism Acts 10:5, dished out the first punishment (to Ananias who fell down dead) Acts 5: 1-6, casted out the heretic Simon Magnus Acts 8:19-20, made the first visitation to the churches Acts 31-32, exercised his Papal Authority in the first council in Jerusalem where after Peter spoke all sumbited Acts 15:7-12, and accepted Paul after his conversion as an aposltle (and note Paul went to Peter and not just any of the apostles and thats because Paul knew Peter to be the leader) Gal. 1: 18.

Also my reply is not directed to anyone in particular I’m just putting in my :twocents:

 

[Timothysis]

Also my reply is not directed to anyone in particular I’m just putting in my :twocents:

An excellent reply…well worth those two cents!!!

 

[Curious_Seed]

I think when Christ commands Peter to feed His lambs and His sheep it is a pretty clear indicator that He appoints Peter as the Shepherd of the flock. I dont understand why people look for Christ to use literal wording like “Peter your the Pope” and think that just because its not phrased this way in the Scriptures that they can therefore deny or ignore the very clear signs of Peters Authority over the rest. I mean to deny all of the clear signs like Peter being the only one that had his name changed (like Abram to Abraham, and others…a sign that they are leaders) , performed the first miracle Acts 3:6-8, proposed the election for another to take Judas bishopric (and note the Apostles did this because Peter advised it) Acts 1:21-26., preached the first sermon on the day of Pentecost Acts 2:14-36, admitted the first converts from judaism Acts 2:38-41 as well as paganism Acts 10:5, dished out the first punishment (to Ananias who fell down dead) Acts 5: 1-6, casted out the heretic Simon Magnus Acts 8:19-20, made the first visitation to the churches Acts 31-32, exercised his Papal Authority in the first council in Jerusalem where after Peter spoke all sumbited Acts 15:7-12, and accepted Paul after his conversion as an aposltle (and note Paul went to Peter and not just any of the apostles and thats because Paul knew Peter to be the leader) Gal. 1: 18.

[Also my reply is not directed to anyone in particular I’m just putting in my :twocents:

There is inference that Peter is the leader, arguably.

I wanted to know, apart from Christ, if there were any declaratives, as well.

The conclusion seems to be no.


[/quote]

 

[Melchior_1]

In Acts, James clearly defers to Peter’s leadership at the first Council. Considering that the Council took place in an area that James had jurisdiction, that speaks volumes does it not?

Also, the symbolism behind Matthew 16 where Jesus gives Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. There He entrusts Peter to not only the rock in which the Church is built upon (which, I may add, is another point to bring up), but He gives Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. It is Peter who gets the Keys to the City, no other Apostle or Disciple.

 

[MrsNoahMoerbeek]

There is inference that Peter is the leader, arguably.

I wanted to know, apart from Christ, if there were any declaratives, as well.

The conclusion seems to be no.

Are you trying to say that since Christ didn’t say verbatim “Peter, you lead My Church after I ascend into Heaven, and your successors will be in charge after you” that it isn’t true?

 

[Melchior_1]

Are you trying to say that since Christ didn’t say verbatim “Peter, you lead My Church after I ascend into Heaven, and your successors will be in charge after you” that it isn’t true?

Maybe he is. I always find such things interesting because people will say “it’s not in the Bible!” yet they refuse to take John 6 literally or take a closer look at Matthew 16:18.

 

[Curious_Seed]

In Acts, James clearly defers to Peter’s leadership at the first Council. Considering that the Council took place in an area that James had jurisdiction, that speaks volumes does it not?

Also, the symbolism behind Matthew 16 where Jesus gives Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. There He entrusts Peter to not only the rock in which the Church is built upon (which, I may add, is another point to bring up), but He gives Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. It is Peter who gets the Keys to the City, no other Apostle or Disciple.

My thanks, for your thoughtful response.

In Acts, there is inference of Peter assuming leadership over James. In Galatians, there is inference of Paul assuming leadership over Peter.

I’m not sure your reference to James in Acts speaks volumes, of Peter heading the Church. But, it does speak of inteference of leadership.

Again, I have asked not to cite Jesus, in learning if there were declarations of Peter being the leader of the Church.

I have asked that the words and directives of Jesus be kept separate, in order to observe what residue, if any, exists to support Peter’s Church leadership, by some declarative.

Apart from bringing forth the words of Jesus, there seems to be no declarative by anyone, at any time, that Peter is the leader, by New Testament reference.

 

[MrsNoahMoerbeek]

My thanks, for your thoughtful response.

Apart from bringing forth the words of Jesus, there seems to be no declarative by anyone, at any time, that Peter is the leader, by New Testament reference.

There’s also no statement by Christ telling those who follow Him to read the Scriptures.

What He meant was so obvious to everyone that there was no need for Him to lay it out so there was no way to twist the meaning. If I tell my daughter to do the dishes, she knows I mean to wash the dishes, I don’t have to say “Sweetie, put the dishes in the sink full of hot soapy water and scrub them clean.” She knows what I mean, and to argue that I don’t mean “wash the dishes” because I didn’t say “wash the dishes” would be disrespect on her part.

 

[Curious_Seed]

Are you trying to say that since Christ didn’t say verbatim “Peter, you lead My Church after I ascend into Heaven, and your successors will be in charge after you” that it isn’t true?

My thanks, for your response.

Please note that I have wanted to observe if there is any support for Peter being declared the leader of the Church - something more substantive than inference.

I am asking that the words of Jesus, not be referenced, in the search.

Not because the words of our Lord are irrelevant: clearly and forcefully, the opposite of that is always true !

I so appreciate the detail of some of the responses that I have received; but, unfortunately, too many either dilute themselves with sarcasm or anger or fail the integrity of my request and cite Jesus, anyway.

 

[Heliotropium]

Are you trying to say that since Christ didn’t say verbatim “Peter, you lead My Church after I ascend into Heaven, and your successors will be in charge after you” that it isn’t true?

I don’t know if the OP is doing that or not but it really wouldn’t make a lot of sense if that was their “proof” so to speak for their argument that the Papacy is “non-scriptural.” By that type of reasoning I can tell someone the Trinity is non-scriptural just because the word Trinity isn’t in the Bible. I wouldn’t do that of course because the Trinity is presented in the Bible the same as Peters Authority over the rest of the Apostles.

Although I would also never look at the Scriptures as possessing all there is to know about my Christian faith because to do this would make me a hypocrite since I would be using Church Tradition by subscribing to the Trinity Doctrine in the first place. This is because the Trinity Doctrine is what the Early Church Fathers in The Holy Church defined what the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit represents when presented in the Sacred Scriptures. These Early Church Fathers also called their Church by title (not description) “The Catholic Church” and that this Catholic Church was and is responsible for the compiling of the Canon for the Bible as well as many other things that are necessary for me to believe as a Christian.

By this I realized that if I was to be outside The Catholic Church while believing these doctrines which were the products of The Catholic Church’s Tradition, I was, by my very actions, admitting the authority of The Catholic Church while at the same time denying its authority. To continue this type of living made absolutely no sense to me which is why I call myself Catholic, why I ‘am a Catholic, and why I will be a Catholic until I die. Frankly any Christian that calls themselves such while being outside of The Catholic Church is either a hypocrite or ignorant.

 

[TimothyH]

:idea:

There is inference of St. Peter as being the leader of the disciples present.

Other than the words of Jesus, is there any declaration or proclamation or statement, by reference in the New Testament, supporting the inference?

Thank you, to all who choose to reply !

I take issue with the statement prior to the question posed. Peter’s appointment to a position of authority is declarative. A short study of political practices of the ancient world reveals how Peter’s appointment is explicit.

*And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:18-19)*This is an explicit statement of an appointment to a postion of leadership. Being granted keys to the kingdom was a reference to a common political practice in ancient monarchies, whereby a first or “Prime” minister would be granted authority by the king to manage the kingdom on a day to day basis, to perform the administrative and managerial functions required to fulfill the king’s commands. Often times the prime mininster would be given the literal “Keys to the kingdom” which were the keys which opened the king’s treasure room, allowing the prime minister to pay soldiers and workmen. Rabbinic authority to interperet the mosaic law and to “Bind” and “Loose” people under the law was also granted to Peter by Jesus.

Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah. (Matthew 16:20)

Jesus strictly orders his disciples to tell no one that he is the Messiah right after his promise to grant Peter a leadership position. The Roman authorities would have immediately understood Jesus’ words about the keys to the kingdom in light of their political significance, namely the establishment of a political and military kingdom. Jesus and his disciples would have been arrested and executed for treason and this is why Jesus stricly orders that the episode not be mentioned.

The entire subject is forshadowed in the Old Testament story of Joseph and Pharoah.

*“Could we find another like him,” Pharaoh asked his officials, "a man so endowed with the spirit of God?" So Pharaoh said to Joseph: “Since God has made all this known to you, no one can be as wise and discerning as you are. You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people shall dart at your command. Only in respect to the throne shall I outrank you. Herewith,” Pharaoh told Joseph, “I place you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” With that, Pharaoh took off his signet ring and put it on Joseph’s finger. He had him dressed in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain about his neck. He then had him ride in the chariot of his vizier, and they shouted “Abrek!” before him. Thus was Joseph installed over the whole land of Egypt. “I, Pharaoh, proclaim,” he told Joseph, “that without your approval no one shall move hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.” (Genesis 38:41-44)*Pharaoh appointed Joseph to be prime minister of the land of Egypt which later enslaved God’s chosen people. Likewise, Peter was appointed to the office of prime minister over all the world which enslaves us in sin.

Pharaoh: I place you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.
Jesus: I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

Pharoah: Without your approval no one shall move a hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.
Jesus: Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Peter is the new Joseph. The appointment to a position of pimacy and leadership with Jesus as its operating authority is declared explicitly.

There is really no need for other declarative statements but support for Peter’s primacy can be found in the many ways in which Peter spoke authoritatively, especially in the Book of Acts.

-Tim-