{"id":8883,"date":"2016-09-26T12:23:02","date_gmt":"2016-09-26T16:23:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admin.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?p=8883"},"modified":"2016-12-28T18:31:42","modified_gmt":"2016-12-28T22:31:42","slug":"is-st-paul-superior-to-st-peter-dialogue","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/09\/is-st-paul-superior-to-st-peter-dialogue.html","title":{"rendered":"Is St. Paul Superior to St. Peter? (Dialogue)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

<\/p>

\"Peter4\"<\/center>
St. Peter as Pope<\/em> (1610-1612), by Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640)<\/span> [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/center>
<\/center>
*****<\/center>
<\/center>
[1998; expanded on 5-13-02]<\/center>\n

*****<\/p>\n

<\/p>

\u00a0A Baptist wrote on a public bulletin board (his words in blue<\/span>):<\/center>
<\/center>
* * * * *<\/center>\u00a0\n
And, of course, some things happened after Paul\u2019s conversion . . . 1) He magnifies HIS office as the Apostle to the Gentiles. Romans 11:13, Romans 15:16.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Paul being sent to the Gentiles has not a whit to do with Peter\u2019s office and function. Why would you think it did? Peter\u2019s ministry is universal, so this merely reinforces our point in a roundabout sort of way.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
2) He authenticates his apostleship by claiming that he supposes he is not one whit less than the chiefest apostles (including Pope Peter). II Corinthians 11:5.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
This whole passage is tongue-in-cheek and sarcastic, but you neglect context in your attempt to undermine Peter\u2019s authority. He speaks of the \u201cfoolishness\u201d of his rhetorical remarks in 11:1. In 11:3-4 he speaks of those proclaiming \u201canother Jesus.\u201d These are the people he says he is \u201cnot in the least inferior to\u201d (NRSV). In that version, he refers to these false evangelists as \u201csuper-apostles\u201d (11:5). He reiterates that these deceivers are wolves in sheep\u2019s clothing, in 11:12-15. Needless to say, this passage has nothing whatsoever to do with St. Peter, unless you want to claim that he is \u201cSatan in disguise\u201d (11:14).<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
3) He is so confident of the New Testament truths given to him that he rebukes Pope Peter I to his face when he lapses into Judaistic practices contrary to the revealed truth of the gospel. Galatians 2:11-14.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Precisely: Peter was rebuked for hypocritical practices, <\/i>as you correctly note. This has no bearing on his office, nor Paul\u2019s position relative to it. Catholics have a long history of laymen rebuking decadent popes, while remaining faithful to the Church (e.g., St. Bernard, St. Francis, St. Catherine of Siena). Peter was inconsistent with his own<\/i> doctrine \u2014 hence the hypocrisy which Paul rebuked \u2014 otherwise the charge makes no sense at all. Upon reading Galatians 2:11-14, one sees the word \u201chypocrisy\u201d or \u201cinsincerity\u201d or \u201cdissimulation,\u201d according to various translations (NRSV, RSV, and KJV, respectively).<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
The word \u201cdissimulation\u201d in Gal 2:13 in the KJV is the Greek hupokrisis<\/i> (Strong\u2019s word #5272) \u2013 from which is derived the English \u201chypocrisy.\u201d It is translated as \u201chypocrisy\u201d in the KJV at Mt 23:28; Mk 12:15; Lk 12:1; 1 Tim 4:2; 1 Pet 2:1. The cognate hupokritees<\/i> is often applied by Jesus to the Pharisees (e.g., Mt 6:2, 5, 16; 7:5; 15:7, 16:3; 22:18; 23:13-15, 23, 25, 27, 29; Mk 7:6; Lk 11:44). We all know what \u201chypocrite\u201d means. This is what Peter was rebuked by Paul for.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
I find it very interesting that Jesus, while He often scathingly rebuked the Pharisees, nevertheless says:<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n