The Apostle Peter

During this year of study on the New Testament I've been able to read a number of books covering the subject. Some of them great, some good and some rubbish. This morning I want to share with you one of the insights I had while reading.

Peter was a great man. A simple man. His real given name Simon or Shim'on which means "he who has heard". It was a very popular name. He came from a small, poor village on the north coast of the Sea of Galilee named Bethsaida (House of Fishers), a village that that had no public buildings, not even a synagogue. As such, it is extremely unlikely that he would have been literate at all. It is almost certain he didn't read Hebrew, the language of the scriptures, as there was no place to be taught or to practice. By his trade, a fisherman, he would have no reason to read or write. Therefore, he probably spoke Aramaic (which is very close to Hebrew, but not identical) of the northern dialect. This northern dialect was rich in symbolism and allusion as it had been adopted and mixed with the tribes that had been scattered by the Persians and had come home and settled north of Jerusalem. When these people came back, they brought with them many of the people they had associated with throughout the Persian Empire. They were not considered to be "pure Israelites" by those who returned to the area south of Jerusalem who had remained rather inert during their captivity, thus the question, "Can any good come out of Nazareth?" Sharing this dialect with the Savior, they would have had a more intimate understanding with each other and shared the difficulty of communicating with those of the southern dialect which is why so much confusion was part of the teaching of the population south of Jerusalem.

Simon was intensely emotional and a leader in his village. He recognized the apostolic calling immediately and followed the Savior. Actually, the Savior followed him to his home to have a little dinner with Simon, his brother and the rest of his family living together in their manorial mud hut. This leads to one of the Lord's first miracles. Upon arrival they find Simon's mother lying down with a crippling headache. Simon must have been anxious and embarrassed. Offering hospitality is a very important and serious part of near eastern culture. Jesus promptly heals Simon's mother of her migraine and dinner is served. This is the kind of miracle I can relate to: simple, practical and faithful and completed with feasting.

Simon had a reputation in his town for being stubborn and maybe a bit slow, In near eastern Aramaic culture, someone with these attributes was said to be "as fast as a rock". Jesus recognizes him as such and applies the label "Cephas" (stone) as a sobriquet. This was the first time that Cephas was used as a name for somebody that has been discovered in literature. Joseph Smith, in his translation, also mentions a comparison to a "seer" or prophet stone. All of these attributes are appropriate for Simon's personality. This led translators to a problem when the original Aramaic of the gospels became the "original Greek" (I love that reference as absolutely nobody in Jesus circle spoke Greek). Stone in Greek has a feminine gender attached to it, petras. The translators did what any good scholar would do and invented a new word petros to apply a masculine regard to the noun. Since then, both "Peter" and "Rocky" have been common names and nicknames.

Some feel that the Savior might have also been a little ironic or humorous in this appellation. Peter's mercurial temper and frequent flip-flopping were anything but stone like. He says he would never deny the Lord, yet denies him thrice (the new idea that he was supposed to do this to protect the budding Church is inconsistent with the resulting tears and repentance that follow). He whacks off the ear of a soldier in the Garden only to be rebuked and the soldier healed. He leaps from the boat to meet the Savior on the water, then sinks as he realizes what he's done. He stands fast with Paul in the doctrine that baptism replaces circumcision and living the jots and tiddles of the Law of Moses in the conversion of Cornelius (thought of as the first gentile conversion), but abandons Paul and his gentile congregation at Antioch when James shows up (Galatians 2) from Jerusalem. As a matter of fact, if you google "rebuke" and "Peter" your screen will be full and you will have hours of reading.

The Catholic Church used Jesus' setting Peter apart ("...upon this rock...") as the basis for papal authority that's been passed down through the ages. Again, a problem, because the line has been broken, bought and mutually excommunicated through history. We in the LDS Church like to think of Peter as this solid foundation upon which the Church was built. This may be a great idea, however the foundation of Peter is not so stable. It is the foundation of prophecy that is. As a matter of fact, I believe that Christ was illustrating that here was Peter, very much a man, fallible, unstable, passionate, devoted, sinful and most of all repentant. He is a stellar example of repentance and humility (we don't have in the scriptures Peter's response to Paul's rebuke, but we know that Peter and Paul continued to work together as brethren). When we understand this foundation, we can truly appreciate the power of the atonement and the need to follow our very human, humble and repentant leaders in the present day. The perfection of the Church is its ability to remain strong to its principles and prosper in spite of the humanity of its members. It was created for us by Divine wisdom and withstands our many faults and flaws.

Finally, a word about the epistles of Peter. One of the things that was common (though certainly not approved) throughout the history of the Church was to create some document with pet doctrine and attribute it to someone else to give it more significance. For example, this little essay is from the totally unbeknownst Kevin Bone. It carries with it very little authority. If, however, I tell you I copied it all from an email I received from Elder Oaks, indeed it is the very word of Elder Oaks, you might give it some weight. In logic and reasoning this is known as the fallacy of "the argument from authority", if someone important says it, it is more true. I believe the only authority we should respect completely is the prompting of the Spirit. It is not important whether something is said by the Prophet, the Bishop, the primary teacher or even me. If it is truth, the Spirit will manifest it and it bears the authenticity of Heavenly Father, the source of all truth.

The structure of the epistles of Peter show a great intimacy and practice of Greek rhetoric. It is incomprehensible that Peter would be the source of this. Certainly Heavenly Father could give Peter the ability to write like that, but it is more likely that he would call someone practiced in Greek rhetoric and let Peter speak in his own powerful voice. I certainly wasn't blessed with fluent, advanced French when I received my mission call, but I recognize the hand of the Lord in allowing me to learn the language to a certain level of competence.

The other thing you see is that there is reference to "Babylon" (1 Peter). Some believe this is literally a reference to the fallen city on the Euphrates, but the more common interpretation is that it was reference to Rome. In fact, this is used to prove that Peter was in Rome and could have endowed the future popes with their power (if this is not the meaning, there is absolutely NOTHING to ever put Peter in Rome). Rome was commonly referred to as Babylon in first century Christian writings. There is a problem with this. We believe that Peter was martyred about CE 67 or 68 (in Rome). The temple in Jerusalem was burned by the Romans in 70 CE (It is believed that the burning of Rome after this was caused by vengeful Christians during Nero's rule. This is what led to subsequent Christian persecution in the Roman Empire. Up to this point, Christianity was absolutely allowed and legal in the Empire. The polytheist pagans didn't like them and suspected their lack of worship of their gods for crop failures, lost wars, etc., but they were allowed to practice.) It was only after the destruction of the temple that the Christians referred to Rome as Babylon.

I love Peter in the New Testament. Even as much, his brother Andrew, who though quiet was stalwart, humble and flexible. He was the first chosen by the Savior to be his missionary companion. He demonstrated that repentance could work, even before the crucifixion. He was totally dedicated, yet was completely lost once the Savior was crucified (thanks, ladies, for coming to get him back). Probably most important to many, he demonstrated the unbreakable link and tension between fishing and worship. We truly stand on his shoulders when we reach sanctity. I bear you testimony, in the name of Jesus Christ, that his apostolic calling was essential to our salvation.