Why Not Peter?

Saint Peter in Tears is a painting by Greco

H

ow could an apostle go from being called blessed in a breath's moment and Satan in the next? Of all people that our Lord could call—who are less impulsive and vacillating—why did it have to be Peter?

Let us examine three possible reasons behind this. This is where the incapacity of Peter begins: He could not fathom the idea of the Son of God dying a criminal’s death. Peter, just like Judas, expected Jesus to triumph over the Jewish oppressors. Talk about suffering and death on a cross, especially the mention of that c-word could make anyone feel in the gut a strong revulsion. Joshua Henson gives this diagnosis of Peter’s personality which is something like a cognitive dissonance; that is, the nature of Jesus’s ministry could never be comprehended given Peter’s cognitive abilities. Furthermore, Peter was struggling—like what often occurs to many of us—with the capacity to understand something that could only be understood spiritually. How did Jesus address this incapacity of Peter? When Jesus saw that Peter, which means rock, was turning into a stumbling block, i.e., σκάνδαλον (skándalon in Greek) which is the means of stumbling, he did not want to let this simply pass. The stakes were so high which could jeopardize Jesus’s mission of saving humanity. There is an ancient maxim that says “Corruptio optimi pessima” meaning “the corruption of the best is the worst.” This applies very much to Peter. No wonder Jesus gave, in a matter of seconds, a complete reversal of the blessing he first uttered to him. “Get behind me Satan! You are a hindrance to me” (Matthew 16:23; Mark 8:31). We understand now where Jesus was coming from when he used those harsh words of rebuke. Jesus uttered the exact words of addressing Satan at his temptation in the wilderness (Luke 4:8). He thought that the corruption of Peter if it was left uncorrected, would have been the worst corruption in human history.

Secondly, let us look at an underlying incapacity behind Peter's outward behavior. Peter like most Jews did not fully understand what St Ignatius calls the two different types of kingdoms. Jesus said to him, “You are not setting your mind on the things of God but on the things of man.” For those who have gone through the thirty-day silent retreat, we remember having meditated on the Two Kingdoms at the end of the First Week of the Spiritual Exercises. Peter needed a dose of the Two Kingdoms meditation to address certain misconceptions in understanding the heavenly kingship of Jesus. The good intentions of Peter were deeply compromised by his lack of understanding or misalignment of the kingdom of the eternal King and the kingdom of the earthly king. The problems of Peter resurfaced when he denied the Lord during the arrest. Was it really bound to happen? Was the prediction of Jesus really a far-fetched one? Or did Jesus already see it coming after the many times Peter placed his foot in his mouth. We asked early on, "Why did it have to be Peter?" We can ask this if we just look at Peter's flaws. However, there is something worth emulating in Peter that Jesus loved and liked in him.

This brings us to the third point which is the weakness of Peter serving as his greatest strength. These two are both direct and inverse proportion: where we are strongest is where we are weakest. Paul was able to articulate this well when he said he can only boast of his own weaknesses, for when he is weak, he is strong. We may look at Peter all we want with a focus on his personal incapacities, but Jesus saw in Peter a model for all of us to follow if we aspire to shepherd God's flock. This is Peter's shining example as the apostle of the apostles: he is closely in touch with his own flaws and incapacities which mirrored all the more Jesus' unconditional love for him. Because of this, Peter took by heart his task of shepherding the whole church without taking to heart the fact that he is very flawed and undeserving. God's greater glory shines in Peter's awareness and acceptance that he is a sinner. This is the best thing about Peter that he is very much like any one of us. He is forever considered the first vicar of Christ despite his weak and vacillating character. Peter is very much a wounded leader of the Church. His wounds were so fatal that he could have fallen hard like Judas if he did not have enough courage to endure his own demons. We say "Why Peter?" when we just look at the wounds and flaws of a person. Upon seeing how much self-dying Peter endured to the extent of seeing himself opposite to Jesus for not being able to comprehend things like the Lord, we say "Why not Peter?" We are all indebted to him for enduring the heaviest cross which is himself. He resisted his greatest demon which is himself so that, in the end, all of God will prevail on himself. And I think for us who aspire to tend the sheep, we should follow the example of Peter.

I would like to end with an excerpt from one of the very early Liturgical Prefaces by St Ambrose: “You bent down over our wounds and healed us, giving us a medicine stronger than our afflictions, a mercy greater than our fault. In this way even sin, by virtue of your invincible love, served to elevate us to the divine life” (Sunday XVI per annum).

Fr JM Manzano SJ