St. Peter & St. Paul
29
June 2014
THEMES AND CONTEXTS
José Enrique Galarreta S.J.
 |
| Rev. Fr. Valentine D'Souza S.J. |
THE TEXT OF THE
ACTS
The earliest communities of Jerusalem have
difficulties with the authorities ( much fewer with the people just as Jesus
had). The Sanhedrin had ordered Stephen to be stoned to death (year 60). Then
there is a period of a certain peace, until (year 44) King Herod (grandson of
Herod the Great), wanting to ingratiate himself with the Jewish authorities,
persecuted the followers of Jesus. He has James Zebedeus (the brother of John)
beheaded and imprisons Peter with the intention of having him tried (and
undoubtedly eliminated too). The text wants to emphasize how the church prays
intensely for him and God frees him miraculously. The literary genre of the
text does not allow us to distinguish between the historical and symbolic
content, still less when the reaction of Peter on being freed will be to escape
from Jerusalem.
THE SECOND LETTER TO
TIMOTHY
It is a writing from among those called
“deutero-pauline”, that is, by someone in his entourage, very probably after
his death. It forms part of those called “pastoral letters” (two to Timothy and
one to Titus, his co-workers).
In it he calls Timothy “my beloved son and
faithful to the Lord”. Born a pagan, he was baptized by Paul. He is his most
faithful collaborator, and Paul sends him on sensitive missions in his name. It
seems he governed the Church of Crete and some traditions place him at the head
of the church of Ephesus.
The letter contains ideas of Paul, but
completely modified, and his style is very different from the properly called
Pauline letters. So it seems they can probably be attributed to a disciple of
Paul who wants to follow his way of thinking, although his greatest worry is
the organization of the churches. As to the date of composition, specialists
are inclined to place it towards the end of the first century or beginning of
the second.
This paragraph contains a “confession” presumably that of Paul ( and perhaps indeed
his, for the author has been able to get together previous writings of Paul) in
which he reveals his feelings towards his imminent death. It is moving to
notice the similarity with the (almost) last words of Jesus on the cross: “It
is finished” ( = mission accomplished). There is a precious passage in the
letter to the Philippians in which Paul speaks of his feelings faced with
death:
I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way
be ashamed, but will have sufficient
courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body whether
by life or by death. For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am
to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what
shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two. I desire to depart
and be with Christ which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you
that I remain in the body... (Philippians 1:20 ss...)
Hence the text does not offer us more than this
aspect of the spirit of Paul among so many rich examples that could have been
presented.
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW
The people are confused and split over the
prophet of Nazareth: whether he is a new prophet or an old prophet returned to
life, even John the Baptist himself risen (to the fright of Herod). But Jesus
asks his own people who they believe he is. As always, Peter stands up as the
spokesman and declares his faith that Jesus is the Messiah.
Here the texts take different directions
according to Matthew and Mark. For Matthew, Jesus “rewards” the confession of
Peter with the promise of the “keys” which establish him as head of the future
Church. But a few verses further on, the expression is used for all the
disciples (a text that the reading of today has taken very good care to omit)
and between the two, Jesus tells them what he will have to suffer and how he
will die rejected by the leaders of the people, which Peter violently opposes.
Jesus reprimands him firmly, calls him “Satan” (the tempter) and tells him he
thinks as men do, not as God.
Naturally between the reprimand and the
enthronement, the personal significance of Peter and the task entrusted to the
group, for the feast of Peter the personal enthronement has been chosen (no
attention paid to Paul).
R E F L E C T I O N
To reflect on history: about Peter we know little
after his miraculous liberation, except for his presence at the so called
“council of Jerusalem” (Acts 15) and for this quotation, which can place him in
Antioch some time later. Tradition shows him in Rome when the Christian
community had already been established, and martyred in the persecution of Nero
– a very venerable tradition but difficult to prove historically.
Regarding Paul we know a little more from the
account of his apostolic journeys in the Acts, which end leaving him a prisoner
in Rome. The story of his later journey to Spain is founded on his expressed
desire in the letter to the Romans 15:24 and 28. Another venerable tradition places his death
also in the persecution of Nero, although it is not connected with that of
Peter. But let us pass on to more transcendental themes.
Our texts have chosen carefully everything that
avoids the most troublesome problems (and hence also the most valuable
messages).
Peter, an enthusiastic follower of Jesus, ready
to lay down his life for him, incapable of even thinking of abandoning him even
if all the others did so, is bogged down in an archaic messianism and thinks of
Jesus as a King of Israel, as one of the earliest Old Testament messiahs.
He will receive from Jesus the task of caring
for the group after his death, and he will fulfill it. In the earliest
community he will be one of its “pillars” , the person with the most prestige
and spokesman for the twelve. And he will the first to understand that what
Jesus signified was not only for Israel, but for all, daring to enter the house
of a pagan, eat with them and baptize them (Acts 10) thus raising protests from
the most strict observers of Judaism within the Christian fold in Jerusalem.
Paul, a Pharisee of the school of Gamaliel,
will initially cruelly persecute the new sect, be an outstanding witness to the
stoning of Stephen and with orders from
the Sanhedrin have many imprisoned. Being converted to Christ on the road to
Damascus, he will be the most ardent
apostle and the one chiefly responsible for opening the Church to “the gentiles”
while abandoning the letter of the Law, circumcision, prohibition of certain
food items, and affirming the equality of all, Jews and gentiles, men and
women, free men and slaves, in the Church. This stance will bring him problems
from the strongest Judaizers (specially
those belonging to the group of James, the brother of the “Lord”, in Jerusalem)
including Peter, as it is recounted in the letter to the Galatians (2,11 ss):
“But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him
in public, because he was clearly wrong.”
Both of them were “apostles”, in the original
meaning of the word, that is “sent”. Peter, with the other ten, is sent
directly by Jesus. (Matthias, the substitute for Judas, is an apostle, chosen
by the community of Jerusalem). Paul says of himself that Jesus sent him,
personally and specially, and it’s the reason why he is called an apostle, even
though in fact he is truly an apostle
for being sent by the communities, specially by that of Antioch. All of
this allows us to recover the original
meaning of “apostle”, that is, sent by Jesus, directly or through the Church,
to preach the Gospel. And that is the reason why the Church is “apostolic”, not
so much because it comes from the twelve apostles, but because it has the
mission of Jesus to preach the gospel to the world.
Peter receives “the keys” and Jesus says to him
“whatever you bind in heaven shall be bound on earth... etc. etc.” It is
significant that this very phrase is used as we have seen, in the very Gospel
of Matthew (18, 18) applied to the whole group of disciples. To know exactly
what this phrase means there is no better way than to verify what the disciples
themselves understood it to mean for which we have the precious witness of the
Acts, the way of proceeding of the community and its leaders, concretely of
Peter, specifically regarding the exercise of authority.
PETER IN ACTS
The figure of Peter appears frequently in the
first part of the book to disappear in the last part, in which Paul has the
leading role.
THE ELECTION OF
MATTHIAS
c. 1: V.15
In those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers – the number
of those gathered there was about a hundred and twenty.
There is business to be transacted: Peter takes
the floor as a leader. But he proposes to all of them that they decide and then
the assembly accepts.
PENTECOST
C.2:
V.14 Then Peter stood up with the other eleven apostles and in a loud
voice began to speak to the crowd: Fellow Jews and all of you who live in
Jerusalem...
After Pentecost, the Eleven always present
themselves presided over by Peter, who is the one who speaks first.
THE PARALYTIC AT THE TEMPLE
C. 3: v1 Peter and John went up to the Temple
for prayer at the ninth hour.
V2 There was
a man there lame from birth...
SPEECH OF PETER TO THE PEOPLE
V 12 Peter, on seeing this, addressed the
people: Fellow Israelites, why are you surprised at this.
In the episode of the healing of the paralytic,
the protagonists are Peter and John: the one who speaks is Peter.
c.5: THE CASE OF
ANANIAS AND SAPPHIRA
Even though the whole community takes part, it
is Peter who shows himself in charge.
DURING THE SECOND PERSECUTION
C 5: V26 So the officer went off with his men
and brought the apostles back. They did not use force, however, because they
were afraid the people might stone them.
V 27
They brought the apostles in, made them stand before the council , and the High
Priest questioned them.
v 28 and
he said to them: WE gave you strict orders not to teach in the name of this
man, but see what you have done. We gave you strict orders not to teach in the
name of this man, but see what you have done! You have spread your teaching all
over Jerusalem and you want to make us responsible for his death.”
V.29
Peter and the other apostles replied: We must obey God not men.” Peter and the
Apostles is a significant expression: they are a group, with a leader who speaks
for all.
THE EVANGELIZATION OF
SAMARIA:
C 8: V14 The apostles in Jerusalem heard that the people
of Samaria had received the Word of God, so they sent Peter and John to them.
THEY SEND PETER AND JOHN: Peter is sent by the
community as an “itinerant apostle”. .This is confirmed in the whole of Chapter
9.
CONSEQUENCES:
C 11 v1 The apostles and the other believers
throughout Judea heard that the gentiles had received the Word of God.
v2 When
Peter went to Jerusalem, those who were in favor of circumcising Gentiles
criticized him
v3 saying: You were a guest in the home of
uncircumcised gentiles, and you even ate with them.”
V4 So Peter gave them a complete account of
what had happened from the very beginning: While I was praying... (here Peter
again narrates in detail the whole epidsode)
V17 It is clear that God gave those Gentiles
the same gift that he gave us when we
believed in the Lord Jesus Christ: who was I, then, to stop God!”
V18 When they heard this they stopped their
criticism and praised God saying: Then God has given to the Gentiles also the
opportunity to repent and live!”
“The apostles and the brethren in Judaea” were
scandalized. And they feel entitled, even duty bound to reproach Peter for what
he did. The community demand an account from the Pope for his behavior: I’d
love to phantasize regarding the incident:
“And
Peter replied: Who are you to question my decisions? To me and to me alone was
given the power of the keys and the personal assistance of the Spirit...It’s
your business to obey the voice of God who speaks through me.”
But nothing of the sort happened. Peter does
not resolve the conflict by laying down the law but by explaining his actions.
This is not the only incident. We shall see it repeated in Chapter 15.
IN THE “COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM”
C 15: v 6 The apostles and the elders met
together to consider this question. V7 After a long debate, Peter stood up and
said: My brothers, you know that a long time ago God chose me from among you to
preach the Good News to the Gentiles so that they could hear the Word of God
and believe...”
Peter intervenes, not to decide, but to put
order and to have Paul and Barnabas heard.
The assembly takes the final decision by
accepting the proposal of James. In the final letter to those at Antioch no
proper name is mentioned of the one sending it: it is the community of
Jerusalem that sends it.
(C 15) v.22
Then the apostles and the elders, together with the whole church,
decided to choose some men from the group and send them to Antioch with Paul
and Barnabas; and these were Judas, called Barsabas and Silas who were highly
respected by the believers.
V23 And they sent the following letter by them:
We, the apostles and the elders, your borthers, send greetings to all our brothers
of gentile birth who live in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia.
V24 We have heard that some men who went from
our group have troubled and upset you by what they said; they had not, however,
received any instructions from us.
V 25 And
so we have met together and have all agreed to choose some messengers and send
them to you. They will go with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul who have
risked their lives in the service of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
V 27 We send you, Judas and Silas, who will
tell you in person the same things we are writing.
V28 The Holy Spirit and we have agreed not to
put any other burden on you besides these necessary rules: eat no food that has
been offered to idols; eat no blood; eat no animal that has been strangled; and
keep yourselves from sexual immorality. You will do well if you take care not
to do these things. With our best wishes.”
LETTER OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.
“But when Peter came to Antioch, I confronted
him face to face, because he deserved to be reprehended.”
When Peter visited Antioch, he maintains an ambivalent attitude
with regard to eating certain foods and
Paul reproaches him. Who is Paul to demand an account from him?
AS A CONSEQUENCE:
Peter occupies an outstanding place in the community,
a kind of leadership. He takes some initiatives and speeches are attributed to
him, those that are the earliest kerygma of the Church.
Whenever decisions are taken, it is not Peter
but the community gathered in assembly that takes them. Peter on his own takes
only one decision: that of entering the houses of pagans, eating with them and
baptizing them (C.10).
On his return to Jerusalem the community
demands an explanation from him, and Peter gives it as a matter of course.
Even Paul, a late arrival, reproaches Peter for
attitudes that do not seem right to him.
TO summarize: Peter is presented as a
distinguished person among the other “Apostles”, a leader of the community. But
he does not exercise the functions of decision making nor of power. In spite of
Peter being highly respected, in spite of his position of “first among the
Apostles”, his function is not that of an absolute leader, nor of having the
last word. We get the impression that there is no absolute leader and that the
last word always rests with the assembly.
In any case, and this is what matters most to
us, “the keys”, “to bind and loose” and “the rock”: these are evidently
symbolic expressions. They can be interpreted as conferring absolute power...
and they can be interpreted as pre-eminence, a greater responsibility.
In fact, against the opinion that tends to
understand these texts as conferring absolute power, different and above all
other powers, a kind of naming of the successor of Jesus, there is the
inescapable witness of how Peter himself and the earliest communities
understood this legacy . We know it only too well, and that is why we have
quoted carefully the texts in which it is made abundantly clear.
Even though the expression may seem excessively
frivolous, the reading of these passages of the Acts would justify the Acts
being sub-titled: “And where are the
keys?”
To conclude
The primacy of Peter over the other “apostles”
has a basis in Jesus, and this is shown in the first communities. The manner of
exercising his mission has no basis in them, nothing that can make it look like
“a primacy of immediate episcopal jurisdiction as was made out later, that is ,
it has nothing to do with absolute monarchy from which it derives any other
power through delegation. This, like the attributes of King, High Priest, and many others are little more than later accretions
, excesses that have slowly gone on obscuring the evangelical meaning of the
mission of the Bishop of Rome.
The church owes much that is
positive to the See of Rome. Much of its unity, of its preservation of the
purity of the faith, of the missionary initiative that covered the whole of
Europe, is due to Rome.
The Church also owes much negatively
to the interpretation of this mission as if it
were an absolute monarchy and a
monopoly of the Holy Spirit.
The times go on shedding this regal,
wealthy, palatial and political image of the Bishops of Rome... Vatican II
returned the bishops to their status and the faithful to their place as
church... but there is a long way to go yet.
AND BUSY WITH ALL THIS WE HAVE NATURALLY FORGOTTEN PAUL, THE APOSTLE WHO
DID NOT DEPEND FOR HIS ELECTION ON PETER NOR ON THE TWELVE, THE ONE WHO OPENED
THE CHURCH TO THE PAGANS, THAT IS, TO THE WORLD, BRINING IT OUT OF THE STRAIGHT
JACKET OF JUDAISM, AND WHO STOOD UP TO PETER (THE POPE) WHEN IT SEEMED TO HIM
HE ACTED WRONGLY.
BUT I THINK IT IS NOT
YET TIME FOR MORE.
Translated by Rev. Fr. Valentine D'Souza S.J.
Translated by Rev. Fr. Valentine D'Souza S.J.
Hello, my name is Jack Sparrow. I'm a 50 year old self-employed Pirate from the Caribbean. 
0 Add comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you and stay connected