"The Delivery of the Keys" Fresco in the Sistine Chapel by Pietro Perugino, 1448-1523. (Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons)

Peter, the Imperfect Rock

Reflecting on Peter’s image for presbyteral identity

Comments Off on Peter, the Imperfect Rock

Art historians have told the incredible tale of how Michelangelo created one of his most iconic statues — the monumental David. When he accepted the commission for this sculpture for his native town of Florence, he went searching for an appropriate block of marble. He finally settled on a flawed and imperfect block that had been rejected by numerous sculptors. The rest, as they say, is history. He carved one of the most beautiful sculptures of idealized male perfection that has ever been done. How can such beauty come from flawed rock?

Maybe the same question can be asked of Peter, the Galilean fisherman whom Jesus chose to be the spokesman for his apostles. One of his feast days, the Chair of Peter, arrives Feb. 22. It affords us a chance to reflect on the implication of Peter’s image for presbyteral identity today.

Let’s first look briefly at what we know about Simon Peter from a historical perspective. It is a curious fact that most of the Twelve Apostles disappear rather quickly from history and enter the theater of later legend. Peter is different, though, especially because of his strong association with the papacy.

Simon, to use his original name, hails from Galilee, where he and his brother Andrew were fishermen. They were the first to be called by Jesus as disciples. That Peter was married is indicated by the mention of his “mother-in-law” (Mk 1:30), who lived with him and his family. He must have had a characteristic Galilean accent, for the Gospels draw attention to this curiosity (cf. Mk 14:70). Bethsaida was the hometown of Andrew and Simon, as well as another disciple, Philip (Jn 1:44). In Hebrew, the town’s name means “house of the fisherman,” so an appropriate place of origin for one whose living was made from fishing. In recent decades, a case has been made for associating Simon Peter with Capernaum, another town by the Sea of Galilee, which is said to have been his residence, as well as the residence of Jesus himself (Mk 2:1).

For much of the rest of the story, we have to turn to other parts of the Gospels. It is worth mentioning here, though, that ancient Christian tradition says Peter was martyred in Rome during the persecution by Nero, around the same time as St. Paul’s martyrdom in the same city. The veneration of the site of St. Peter’s Basilica as the reputed burial site of Peter has sustained the association of Peter with this city. Archaeology tends to support this identification.

According to the Gospels

The Gospels have much more to say about Simon Peter. I will concentrate only on five aspects of this fascinating figure that hold some intriguing lessons for priests today.

The first and most prominent part of Simon Peter’s story in the Gospels is his confession at Caesarea Philippi of Jesus as the Messiah (cf. Mt 16:13-23). Matthew’s version is the most complete. After the response to Jesus’ question of how he is perceived by people, Jesus then asks the disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” Simon confesses (rightly!), “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Simon understands. He correctly perceives Jesus’ identity. For this confession, Jesus grants him the nickname by which he is forever known, Peter, from the Greek petros for “rock.” Most likely, he was referred to by the Aramaic form of his nickname, Kephas (or Cephas in Greek letters), as is evidenced in John’s Gospel (1:42), where it is translated, and in Galatians (1:18; 2:11).

Jesus goes even further. He emphasizes the significance of this nickname, stating that upon “this rock I will build my Church.” Jesus imagines Peter as a solid foundation for the community of disciples he envisions. For such a group to survive and flourish, they need a rock-solid leader, someone who won’t crumble.

 

The Altar of the Chair of St. Peter in St. Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City. (Shutterstock)

Not one, but two lessons for priests emerge from this one scene. The first is that we, too, must confess Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God. It is an important faith statement. Our ministry of the word, in particular, is a means by which we witness our faith in God’s only begotten Son. Like Peter, we should recognize Jesus’ true identity and confess it openly.

The second lesson is that we, like Peter, should function as stable foundations for the Faith. Even though we are not called to the Petrine office, we are called to a special form of discipleship as presbyters. Ideally, we are not seduced by other temptations and diversions and do not waver amid life’s challenges. These two rather simple lessons provide us priests with a good beginning in our ministry, but there is more to learn from Peter’s story.

See More Deeply

As the same passage continues, Jesus describes what his identity as God’s Son really means. It demands his suffering as the Son of Man, even to death. At this, Peter’s reaction is immediate and forceful: “God forbid, Lord!” Would we expect anything different from a faith-filled, rock-solid disciple? Peter is simply expressing the most logical response to such a scenario. The surprise is Jesus’ own dramatic counter-reaction. He calls Peter a “Satan” and a “stumbling block” (Greek skandalon)! He even accuses him of perceiving only from a human angle and not from God’s perspective, although he asserts that his heavenly Father had given Peter this insight (cf. Mt 16:17). Why this sudden shift? The following (vv. 24-28) give a clue. They concern the nature of true discipleship. Following Jesus means to learn to deny yourself, take up a cross and give your life for others. It means doing what the Master himself did.

The third lesson emerges here: Look more closely to perceive what it means to be a true follower of Jesus. Don’t be satisfied with appearances. Peter’s confession was not wrong, but it was not the full story. If the Master himself will have to suffer for the sake of his true message, will not his disciples also suffer? (Jesus says this explicitly to Peter and the others in the “discipleship discourse” of Matthew 10:16-33.) Seeing with the eyes of faith means seeing the deeper truth, the hidden reality, that might otherwise be missed. Peter had to learn this lesson, and so do we.

A fourth lesson lurks in the story of this Gibraltar of faith. The Gospels record several incidents involving Peter that reveal another side of his character. He must have been rather brash. Perhaps he tended to act on impulse without reflecting on the consequences. At the Last Supper, for instance, despite Jesus’ prediction that the disciples’ faith would be shaken that night, Peter boldly says, “Though all may have their faith shaken, mine will never be” (Mt 26:33).

Would we expect anything less from this “rock”? But Jesus’ prediction that Peter would deny him three times that night before the cockcrow leads him to yet another brash denial that he would ever do such a thing. Alas, we know Peter fulfilled this prediction perfectly. It is impossible to imagine that early Christians would have invented such a story if it were not true. It seemingly does not speak well of this rock-solid disciple. Peter’s impulsiveness is seen again at the Last Supper when Peter is embarrassed to let Jesus wash his feet. At Jesus’ insistence, Peter rashly exclaims, “Master, then not only my feet, but my hands and head as well” (Jn 13:9).

 

“Christ Taken Prisoner” (1597) by Giuseppe Cesari, 1568-1640. (Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons)

Another example of Peter’s hasty action is also recorded in John’s Gospel. At the arrest of Jesus, John says that it was Simon Peter who drew a sword and cut off the high priest’s servant’s ear (cf. Jn 18:10). Jesus responds by rebuking him for trying to prevent him from “drinking the cup” of his destiny. At this late occasion in the story, did Peter still not perceive the nature of Jesus’ ministry?

For us priests, I suggest we also learn from Peter’s example. Acting in haste without fully understanding the consequences of our actions can be devastating. I fear some priests have, in fact, acted without prudence — if perhaps with good intentions — when they get sidetracked by political ideology or secular preoccupations rather than the truth of the Gospel. We need to learn to act prudently.

The Most Important Lesson

If that were the conclusion of the story of this chief disciple, it would obviously end on a sour note. But the most important lesson for Peter was yet to come.

After his tragic denial of Jesus, Peter recognized how hurtful this action was, and Matthew’s text says that he “went out and began to weep bitterly” (Mt 26:75; Lk 22:62). Whatever the phrase means in precise terms, it clearly symbolized Peter’s regret and repentance. That the Lord did not hold this denial against his chief disciple is already evident in the Resurrection narratives. At the empty tomb, the women are instructed to tell his disciples and Peter (cf. Mk 16:7) that Jesus is risen and will precede them into Galilee, where the ministry had begun.

Exactly how Peter’s repentance worked out is not made clear in the Gospels. John, however, has the unique scene of the risen Jesus confronting Peter with the threefold question of whether Peter loves him (cf. Jn 21:15-19). Many interpreters see this scene as the rehabilitation of Peter. Unlike Judas the betrayer, Peter does not despair. He humbly accepts the risen Lord’s offer of reconciliation.

This is indeed the most important lesson for us priests. We, too, are not worthy of the call we have received. We, too, are sometimes weak and not at all the stable servants we are supposed to be. Nevertheless, the Lord offers us a chance to repent and profess his love. It is the chance for a new beginning, which is exactly what the Sacrament of Reconciliation is about. We who administer this sacrament should know that it is meant for us as well. We know our unworthiness for the call we have received. But the Lord did not wait for us to get our act together, so to speak. St. Paul, who had his own challenges sometimes with Peter, said it best: “God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8).

The rock was not without sin, without flaws, without peccadillos. When crunch time came, however, he showed that he could rise above these limitations. Ultimately empowered by the Holy Spirit, he could indeed be the rock, the leader, the solid support for his companions. This is what I believe Jesus perceived in this humble fisherman from Galilee. And he has withstood the passing of time.

 

“Christ Appearing to Saint Peter on the Appian Way (Domine, Quo Vadis?)” by Annibale Carracci, 1560-1609. (Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons)

A Petrine Ministry?

The New Testament is uniformly clear that Peter’s reconciliation must have been effective, for his role as the chief disciple is evident throughout. He functions regularly as the chief spokesman of the apostles, part of the inner circle with James and John, and in the Acts of the Apostles he is the major focus of the book’s first half, beginning with the Pentecost event. His speeches and miraculous deeds speak volumes of his effectiveness in ministry. He may have had a rocky start (pun intended!), but in the end his sure foundations became evident. Jesus had not chosen poorly. He surely knew that Peter could sometimes be impulsive, stubborn and brash as a leader. Yet he chose him. He commanded him to “follow,” something Peter did without hesitation.

This last lesson is of utmost importance for us priests today. We do not aspire to the Petrine office, I presume, but to the Petrine ministry. If the former survives in the papacy and the office of the bishop of Rome, the latter exists in all who hear the apostolic call to presbyteral ministry. 

SULPICIAN FATHER RONALD WITHERUP is former superior general of the Society of St. Sulpice and author of many books on biblical and theological themes.

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe now.
Send feedback to us at PriestFeedback@osv.com