Peter on Paul's Authority

Some reject Paul's teachings as not having the same authority as the Gospels or the original Apostles' teaching.  A great deal of Christian doctrine is worked out in Paul's Epistles, and the claim is that his teaching is not on par with other teachings in the New Testatment.  Here is an interesting passage to note where Peter refers to Paul's writings on par with his teaching and as Scripture.

2 Peter 3: 14-16:  Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Comments

[SteveT]

Well, that's easy enough. The same people who don't like Paul dismiss 2 Peter as pseudoepigraphal so they don't have to deal with this.

After all, I've heard them say, can you really think that the Peter who Paul smacks down in Galatians would really refer to him as "our beloved brother Paul"? So obviously Peter didn't write this.

All of this demonstrates a total lack of respect for the concept of inspiration, and it also seems to assume that there is no reconciliation for brother and sisters in Christ.

[Jason Engwer]

Even if one rejects Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, the document at least holds a high view of Peter and could be attributed to a Petrine community. Thus, it would still reflect a high view of Paul among early disciples of Peter. (I accept Petrine authorship of 2 Peter. I'm just saying that the document wouldn't lose all of its significance in this context if we were to reject Petrine authorship.)

In Galatians, Paul refers to Peter as an apostle and as somebody who gave him the right hand of fellowship. His dispute with Peter in Galatians 2 doesn't logically imply a contradiction of his earlier comments about Peter or the reasonableness of thinking that Peter would make comments about Paul such as we see in 2 Peter 3. Galatians 2 is entirely consistent with a traditional Christian view of the relationship between the two men. And Paul makes multiple positive comments about Peter in 1 Corinthians, a document usually dated later than Galatians. Acts portrays a similar relationship between the two. As Martin Hengel noted, regarding one of the relevant passages in 1 Corinthians:

"The significance of 1 Cor. 15.11, a passage which is all too easily forgotten in New Testament theology (see above, 145ff.), cannot be estimated highly enough. Among other things, despite all the difficulties (which are sometimes great), indeed tensions and fights, it is the basis for the final unity of the primitive Christian proclamation of Christ; one could also say on the basis of 1 Cor. 15.1-11 that it is the basis of the christological unity of the Gospel." (The Four Gospels And The One Gospel Of Jesus Christ [Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 2000], p. 156)

The gospels refer to the apostles as a unified body, as do Acts, Paul's letters, 2 Peter, Revelation (21:14), etc. It's a frequent theme of the New Testament, repeated often and by multiple sources.

Also worth noting is that the earliest patristic sources refer to a large degree of unity between Peter and Paul and the apostles as a whole. The early Pauline churches use Petrine documents, men like Clement of Rome and Ignatius refer to Peter and Paul together as representative of a unified apostolic authority, etc. Polycarp, in the early second century, writes of the apostles in general:

"I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the word of righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such as ye have seen set before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles. This do in the assurance that all these have not run in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are now in their due place in the presence of the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not this present world, but Him who died for us, and for our sakes was raised again by God from the dead." (Letter to the Philippians, 9)

Similarly, other men who were contemporaries or nearly contemporaries of the apostles write about the unity the apostles had and refer to them collectively as if they had taught the same doctrines: Clement of Rome (First Clement 5, 42, 44); Papias (in Eusebius, Church History, 3:39:4); Ignatius (Letter To The Ephesians, 11; Letter To The Magnesians, 13; Letter To The Romans. 4); Aristides (Apology, 2); The Epistle Of Barnabas (5); etc.

Remember, the unfaithfulness of Judas is mentioned by all of the gospels, Acts, Paul, Papias, etc. When men like Judas and Demas departed from the faith, their unfaithfulness is mentioned prominently. Even the lesser errors of the early church leaders, such as the unbelief of Jesus' brothers and Peter's denials of Christ, are mentioned by the earliest sources. It's doubtful that some sort of major disunity existed among the apostles without having left more of a trace in the historical record.

The letters of Paul were accepted early, as we see in Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp, for instance, and they were among the least disputed documents of the New Testament. Origen mentions a minor dispute over 2 Timothy, for example, but such disputes were few and far between.

[noblewar]

Thanks for this information. I am new to the concept that there are those out there who reject or suspect Paul's apostolic authority. I was quite suprised when I first heard of this. The initial thought that came to my mind was: If Paul was able to write a large portion of the New Testament without the inspiration and sanction of God, how can we trust any of the NT writers?

[e. barrett]

"I've heard them say, can you really think that the Peter who Paul smacks down in Galatians would really refer to him as "our beloved brother Paul"? So obviously Peter didn't write this."

I've heard that argument as well. But what strikes me is this - if Peter and Paul couldn't forgive and love one another - what chance do I have of "loving my enemies?"

Not much I'd say.