The Simplest Explanation For Peter's Prominence

There are many places in the New Testament in which Peter is prominent for reasons that are obviously of a non-papal nature. I'll start with some examples in the gospels of Matthew and John that are striking in how similar they are, despite appearing in such different contexts. When Peter leaves the boat he's in and enters the water in Matthew 14:29 and John 21:7, while the other disciples remain in the boat, he does so because of the nature of his personality, not because he's a Pope. Similarly, Peter's entering the tomb, while John remains outside, in John 20:6 is best explained by Peter's personality, not a papal office. And so on. Peter was outspoken, impulsive, rash, and so forth, so that he would often stand out for reasons other than a papacy. There's no reasonable way to deny that Peter's prominence in the early sources is due partly to such personal traits.

And that's a problem for Roman Catholicism. Since Peter's personality explains his prominence so well, no papacy or any other concept of a similar nature is needed to explain that prominence. All other things being equal, we prefer simpler explanations. Simplicity isn't the only criterion we take into account, but it is one of the criteria we consider. Why seek a second explanation for Peter's prominence when the first one is sufficient?

The passage most often cited by Catholics in this context, Matthew 16:18-19, is closely followed by Jesus' rebuke of Peter in verse 23. We don't take that latter passage as a reason to look for a Satanic succession that will infallibly represent Lucifer in every generation. Yes, Jesus singles out Peter in Matthew 16:23. Yes, what Jesus says to Peter there isn't said to anybody else. But all of what occurs in that episode can easily be explained by Peter's personal traits. He misjudged the situation and rebuked Jesus when he shouldn't have, so Jesus responded in a way that singled out Peter, since Peter was the one speaking to him. It wouldn't make sense for Jesus to rebuke Thomas in response to Peter's error. In the same way, Jesus' responding to Peter in verses 18-19 is easily explained, and best explained, by Peter's personal characteristics, without any papal office involved. It was Peter who rightly identified Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God, so it wouldn't have made sense for Jesus to have responded by talking to Thomas. And, unlike the situation with verse 23, what's said of Peter in verses 18-19 is also said of the other disciples elsewhere. If we assume that Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18, the other apostles are also referred to with such architectural terminology (Galatians 2:9, Ephesians 2:20, Revelation 21:14). And, unlike the effort to differentiate Jesus in Ephesians 2:20, for example, no effort is made in any of these passages to differentiate Peter from the other apostles. Similarly, the imagery of thrones in Matthew 19:28 differentiates Jesus' glorious throne from the thrones of the Twelve, but no effort is made to distinguish Peter's. Likewise, all of the disciples are referred to as having the keys of the kingdom in Matthew 18:18, again without any effort to place Peter above the others.

Peter is sometimes appointed to a role that's superior to that of one or more of the other apostles. But when it happens, such as his being an apostle with a focus on the Jewish people in Galatians 2:8, we're explicitly told about it. We don't have to read it into the text in the sort of dubious way Catholics handle passages like Matthew 16 and John 21:15-17. Another passage where we see explicit reference to a significant role Peter was appointed to is Acts 15:7. Peter was chosen to introduce the Gentiles to the gospel in Acts 10. That's not equivalent to a papal office, but it is a unique role Peter was given. In a similar way, John is the beloved disciple, Paul is referred to as having a focus on the Gentiles that Peter didn't have in Galatians 2:8, etc. Peter is sometimes unique, superior, and so forth in comparison to the other apostles, but never in a way that suggests a papacy.

There's no one explanation for Peter's prominence in every context. But appealing to his personal traits to explain passages like Matthew 16, Luke 22:32, and John 21 is more parsimonious than appealing to another, superfluous explanation, like a papacy.

Furthermore, Paul's greater prominence than Peter in most of Acts and most of the rest of the New Testament makes more sense if Peter's earlier prominence was due to personal factors like those I've mentioned rather than a papacy. James, also, is more prominent than Peter at times. It's probably not a coincidence that Peter's prominence greatly diminished once individuals with personality traits like those of James and Paul became apostles. When Paul and Peter are preparing the readers of their letters for their impending deaths in 2 Timothy and 2 Peter, both of them direct their readers to remember past apostolic teaching and scripture, for example, but say nothing about the bishop of Rome (or an ongoing infallible church). Factors like these make more sense if Peter's prominence was of a non-papal nature.