Paul and Peter

It is evident that [Luke] gives prominence in his story to Peter (chapters 1-12) and to Paul (chapters 13-28).  It seems very probable, as well, that he deliberately presents them as exercising parallel, rather than divergent, ministries.  The similarities are remarkable.  Thus, both Peter and Paul were filled with the Holy Spirit (4.8 and 9.17; 13.9).  Both preached the Word of God with boldness (4.13, 31 and 9.27, 29).  Both bore witness before Jewish audiences to Jesus crucified, risen, and reigning, in fulfillment of Scripture, as the way of salvation (e.g., 2.22ff and 13.46ff).  Both preached to Gentiles as well as Jews (10.34ff and 13.46ff).  Both received visions which gave vital direction to the church’s developing mission (10.9ff; 16.9).  Both were imprisoned for their testimony to Jesus and then miraculously set free (12.7ff and 16.25ff).  Both healed a congenital cripple – Peter in Jerusalem and Paul in Lystra (3.2ff and 14.8ff).  Both healed other sick people (9.41 and 28.8).  Both exorcised evil spirits (5.16 and 16.18).  Both possessed such extraordinary powers that people were healed by Peter’s shadow and by Paul’s handkerchiefs and aprons (5.15 and 19.12).  Both raised the dead – Tabitha, in Joppa by Peter, and Eutychus, in Troas by Paul (9.36ff and 20.7ff).  Both called down God’s judgment on a sorcerer/false teacher – Peter, on Simon Magus in Samaria, and Paul, on Elymas in Paphos (8.20ff and 13.6ff), and both refused the worship of their fellow human beings – Peter, that of Cornelius, and Paul, that of the Lystrans (10.25-26 and 14.11ff).

It is true that these parallels are scattered through Acts and are not put in direct juxtaposition to each other.  Yet, there they are.  They can hardly be accidental.  Luke surely includes them in his narrative in order to show, by his portraiture of Peter and Paul, that they were both apostles of Christ, with the same commission, gospel, and authentication.  It is in this way that he may be called a “peacemaker” who demonstrated the unity of the apostolic church.

From: The Message of Acts: The Spirit, the Church, and the World by John R. W. Stott; The Bible Speaks Today series (Downers Grove/Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1990), pp. 28-29.

In the first paragraph above, I have simplified Stott’s syntax by transforming his dependent clauses (originally all separated by semi-colons) into full sentences of their own.  I have also slightly edited a very small portion of his other punctuation.  In no case has Stott’s original meaning been changed.

 

On Peter’s Triple Denial

St. Peter’s triple denial is a cause of the greatest embarrassment to critics too forgetful of the wise principles enunciated by St. Augustine on the freedom which, like others, the sacred writers enjoyed while writing their narratives.  Taking into account all the variants, as many as eight or nine distinct denials have been numbered.  To solve the discrepancies, the narrative of St. John, the eyewitness, should claim the place of preference; then that of St. Mark, so careful of precise detail with which the other Synoptics are less concerned.  St. John places the episode partly before, partly after, the sending of Jesus from Annas to Caiaphas.  Though St. Matthew and St. Mark recount it before the sentence passed by the High Priest, and St. Luke places it after that event, such inversion, which is frequently met with in the Gospels, should not cause us too much concern.  The other divergences are more serious.  Meanwhile, it should be noted that the little drama takes place in three acts, with many actors appearing, and this may well have given rise to divergent traditions.

From: Jesus Christ: His Life, His Teaching, and His Work by Ferdinand Prat, SJ; translated from the 16th French edition by John J. Heenan, SJ; 2 volumes (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1950), 2:343.  French original published in 1933.

 

The Apostle Peter’s Character

We are all, undoubtedly, familiar with the characterization of Peter as the apostle of hope.  The well-known distinction runs: Paul, the apostle of faith; John, the apostle of love; Peter, the apostle of hope.  Of course, generalizing definitions like this are apt to be somewhat misleading.  They would be wrong if they were to give us the impression that, in Paul, hope was not particularly prominent or, for John, faith was not especially important.  A single glance at the writings of these two apostles would suffice to convince us of the contrary.  These three characteristics are necessary ingredients of all Christian life.  The only question can be – which of the three virtues is the most characteristic in each; or, to put the same thing in a different way, in connection with which, does the individuality of each apostle find clearest expression?

These great Christian virtues are not something arbitrary.  They correspond closely to the fundamental dispositions and activities in the natural constitution of man.  What a man is, temperamentally, by nature, he will, as a rule be, tempermentally, in the state of grace.  Evidently, Peter’s was a temperament of hope.  We can observe this in all that is recorded of him in the Gospels and Acts.  And so, in his regenerate, Christian life, he retains this peculiarity.  That side of redemption which has to do with hope most deeply impressed and most strongly appealed to him.  Therefore, he was used by the Spirit as the apostle to interpret for us the nature and influence of Christian hope.

Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949), sermon, “The Christian’s Hope” (1 Peter 1:3-5), preached at Princeton Theological Seminary, in Princeton, New Jersey, on November 13, 1904.  Published in Grace and Glory: Sermons Preached in the Chapel of Princeton Theological Seminary by Geerhardus Vos; 2nd edition (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1994 [1922]) pp. 139-140.