October 18, 2005
Why Did John Wait?
John 20:1-8. Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid them.” Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb. They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first; and stopping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying, and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed;I’m curious: from a protestant perspective, why did the disciple John wait? Why not go in? If the disciples are all equal in stature, shouldn’t he have gone in first (since he got there first)?
This passage ties closely into the Catholic argument that Peter was “first among equals.” As we’ve pointed out before, Peter’s name is always mentioned first when listed with other disciples. Even here, Mary Magdalene runs to “Simon Peter and the other disciple.” And the other disciple? He waits until Simon Peter enters the tomb first.
God bless,
Jay
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Most Protestants that I know (and I'm married into a Protestant family) don't have problems with Peter being first among equals. Its evident in the Bible that he is.
They have a problem with Catholics saying he was the first Pope. They don't view the current Church structure as being representative of anything like what the early church was like.
On the fundamentalist/non-denominational side of things, they also view what they have for simple services and simple liturgical structures as being indicative of what the early church was like. What the Catholic church is today is an abomination to the early church in a lot of their eyes.
Posted by: DJ at October 19, 2005 11:23 AMJay,
From the perspective of the majority of Catholic exegetes, this text illustrates a likely struggle in the Johannine community (of the early 90s AD or later) over the authority - for that particular community - of the beloved disciple, who many think founded the community.
Peter's entering the tomb first illustrates that for this community, that the primacy of Peter won the day - at least at the time of composition.
BUT, there is tension in the story that the evangelist doesn't want to relieve too easily (like we want to do)...notice the footrace! The beloved disciple WINS the footrace to the tomb...but Peter (I imagine him huffing and puffing) stumbles "across the finish line" first.
It is a wonderful illustration!!
Focussing to much on who enters the tomb first (i.e. relieving the tension in the story) risks missing the beauty and intricacy of this narrative.
Peace.
Posted by: Jack at October 19, 2005 12:40 PMI think the primacy of Peter of the other Apostles is moot until we reach agreement over whether the Apostolic gift continued past the death of the last apostle.
Posted by: Broken Record at October 20, 2005 9:49 PMJay:
It is questions like these that contribute to the division between Roman catholics and protestants. Why the loaded question? There is no "protestant perspective" in regards to this narrative. In fact, there is no Roman catholic perspective either. All we have is protestant or Roman catholic speculation. No one knows why the other disciple did not "go in first". The text does not elaborate. So infering that it was because they were waiting for Peter because he was the head of the church is adding to the meaning of the text. It is readng into the text rather than taking the text at face value for what it was intended to convey; and that is an accurate historical narrative on what occurred. Maybe John was afraid to go in. Maybe he got a rock in his sandle and stopped to take it out. Who knows. Does it really matter? And I agree with DJ. I do not have problems with Peter. The issue comes with the Roman catholic church's historical revision that Peter was "the first pope". Let me ask you a question. Do you follow Peter or do you follow Jesus? Did Peter die on the cross for the forgiveness of your sins? Remember what happened when the disciples argued among themselves over which disciple "would be greatest"? Jesus said that the least among them would be the greatest. Those who are first would be last and those who are last would be first. The Bible is clear on one thing regarding this. Jesus is the Head of the church. He is the "cornerstone". Every one else, including Peter,the rest of the disciples, and the pope make up the body of the Church.
May God bless you always,
Ernie
Ernie,
While I agree with you that such questions cause more division than understanding - the way Jay presents the issues on this blog are a deliberate attempt to evoke confrontation (eh, the ugly side of "apologetics" - Is there a beautiful side??)- I disagree with your ironic interpretation of the Catholic Church's "revisionist" history with respect to whether or not Peter was the first Pope, for what you accuse the RC Church of doing, you do yourself. [I leave aside the apparent fact that the early church fathers (prior to Constantine!) thought of Peter as "il Papa" - revisionism or not].
"...taking the text at face value... (as) an accurate historical narrative of what occurred" is an interpretive move that smacks of ethnocentrism; a fallacy of ontological monism. Ernie, this is historical revisionism at its best, forcing onto an ancient mediterranean text written within an ancient mediterranean culture our modern-western notion of historical reportage.
But that is a discussion that crosses boundaries when it come to the Catholic and Protestant "dispute."
Blessings!
Posted by: Jack at October 21, 2005 10:05 AMWhat I find fascinating is how the "Jesus selected Peter to be the earthly head of the Church" debate spills over into how Catholics and Protestants understand Ephesians 5:22 (Wives submit to your husband, for the husband is the head of the wife has Christ is head of the Church).
In particular, the Catholic idea that Jesus left behind a Pope as earthly head, that he would give Peter the power to bind and loose, and that Jesus would in turn respect the Church's decisions by binding and loosing in heaven accordingly means very much to a marriage. For if Catholics believe that Christ, as head of the Church, bestowed immense authority upon the papal office, so too Catholics must then carry this idea into marriage where husband is head of the wife.
This means that a husband, as head of the wife, must bestow upon his wife the same authority that Jesus bestowed upon Peter. For the Protestant, this means bestowing next to no authority to the wife. For the Catholic, this means bestowing the all privileges of the Petrine Office (i.e. the keys to the kingdom) to the "Pope" of his domestic Church. And this "Pope" is none other than his beloved wife!
Now I begin to see why Catholic girls ought to think twice before marrying a non-Catholic...
Posted by: Broken Record at October 21, 2005 8:20 PMJack:
Why confrontation? Why not harmony? Why purposely seek confrontation rather than promote unity? I understand the need for apologetics. But is not apologetics a defense of the truth. It is defensive not offensive. Just a thought.
In what way am I revising history? Where is the proof that Peter refered to himself as the pope? Or that he was thought of as the pope by others while he was alive? It is similar to going back in history and refering to Christopher Columbus as the first president of the United States because he was the first person to land in North America. As for early church father's refering to Peter as "il papa" I will have to plead ignorant to that "fact" of history. That is the first I hear of it. Regardless, that does not dismiss the possibility of "revisionism".
As for your last statement, please forgive my niavity but I think sometimes we complicate the simple things. Maybe I am just simple minded but if the gospel writers wrote that "Jesus walked up the mountain" then guess what? Jesus walked up the mountain. There is no hidden meaning. That is what the text means. We are not to try to find hidden meaning in Gospel narratives such as, 'Did the gospel writer really mean that Jesus walked up the mountain or was he refering to Jesus walking higher than any man had ever walked'. We are to extract from the scriptures the meaning that it was intended to convey not read into the passage some other meaning that the writers never intended. Having said all that, I agree that when we read scripture we must read it in light of the times and culture in which it was written. However, were not the gospels intended to be a narrative (an account) of what occurred and was said in the life of Jesus and his disciples? So how is what I said "an interpretive move that smacks of ethnocentrism" and "a fallacy of ontological monism"?
May God bless you always,
Ernie
Broken Record:
Those two topics are unrelated. In Ephesians 5:22 Paul is not refering to husbands bestowing authority to their wives at all. It appears you missed the whole point Paul was trying to make. If you read the entire passage you will find that Paul is comparing the relationship we should have to our spouses with the relationship Jesus has with the Church. Paul is saying that husbands, being the head of family and their wives, should love their wives as Jesus loved the Church. He then points out that Jesus loved the Church so much that He gave His life for her. And as such, husbands should love their wives that strongly that they would be willing to lay down their lives for her. Paul makes no mention or even hints of bestowing "immense authority" to your wife. That is not what he was talking about at all. And Paul stating that wives be submissive to their husbands does not mean that wives are to be slaves to their husbands which is what I believe you may be implying when you state that protestants bestow "next to no authority" to their wives. Your comment regarding protestant marriages is way off. It appears to me that you do not know too many protestant couples to make a comment like that. But regardless your line of thinking regarding Ephesians appears to be interpreted by a preconceived notion. You interpret it with the pre-conceived idea that "Jesus left behind a pope as earthly head". That is why you miss the point Paul was trying to make, I believe.
May God bless you always,
Ernie
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not brevealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this arock I will build my bchurch; and the gates of chell shall not dprevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
(New Testament | Matthew 16:17 - 19)
peter became the head of the church
Posted by: lin at February 6, 2007 10:29 PM
