What do you think?
Rate this book
The Life and Witness of Peter
Who was Peter and what was his true stature in the early church? For Protestants at least, Peter seems caught between two the rustic fisherman of Galilee and the author of two lesser New Testament letters. And in both cases he is overshadowed by Paul. In The Life and Witness of Peter, Larry Helyer seeks to reinstate this neglected and underestimated apostle to his rightful stature as an early Christian leader and faithful witness to Christ. Reconstructing Peter's life, theology and legacy from evidence in 1 and 2 Peter, the Gospels, Acts, Paul's letters, and texts from the early church, Helyer renders a great service for students of the New Testament. We are introduced to Peter the eyewitness who stands behind much of Mark's Gospel, Peter the preacher who lends deep credibility to the account of Acts, and Peter the letter-writer whose words glow with spiritual intelligence. Along the way we are rewarded with a careful analysis of prominent theological themes in Peter's letters. And we learn much about the traditions, legends and legacy of Peter in the post-apostolic era
329 pages, Paperback
First published September 24, 2012
39 people are currently reading
40 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
March 30, 2024
I give this work a five, but it does have some problems. Fist, and Helyer admits this in the introduction, he does not use any of the non-canonical works on Peter in his discussion. Ok thats fair, but if your arn't going to use the non-canonical works of Peter then why do you continually site Enoch and his four books through out the work? This really bothers me as an author is not consistent in what sources he includes and what he holds out as references. Maybe I'm picky. Kudos to Helyer in discussing the non - canonical works by or on Peter. But he could have cited them and then also discussed in more depth why he and other historians, theologians, archeologists, writers, etc have not put these works in the cannon. I believe that as you learn catholic, as in church universal, history you find the answer in 325 CE in Nicaea.
The Council of Nicaea was called by Constantine to create one Church and one Creed. For in 306CE when Constantine I took over as Emperor he had to continually fight to hold the Empire together from both interior and exterior attacks. Many of these interior attacks came from the church that he made the Supreme Religion of the Empire. Constantine planned to use this newly legalized religion, Christianity, to unite the Empire behind one God and as Emperor he would, by the divine right of kings, be the head of that political entity and the Church would back his plans. All this can be read in Gibbons, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. In 325 Constantine called the Council of Nicaea. It met for four to six weeks and included all 1800 Bishops in the Empire. Well almost all, The Copts of Egypt and the Jacobines of Syria declined the Emperors invitation, also declining were the Churches in India and many of the ascetic monks of the Sinai, lower Egypt, Ethiopia, and the Yemen, History of Eastern Christianity, by Aziz S. Atyia. for further information on others who declined and their reasons. But I digress. Nicaea had a distinct political over tone. Constantine attended every session and chaired several himself. Many works that the people felt were Canonical were left out of the canon because they preached, to Constantine and the Bishops heresy. The acts of Thecala preached that all people once they become Christian also became born again virgins and to not defile their new found virginity with earth bound sex. Thecala was not the only book that preached this idea. In the Acts of Peter he also preaches new found virginity, an idea that takes hold on Romes elite wives and leads to Peter leaving Rome. There are also multiple letters from Paul preaching celibacy that were excluded at Nicaea from the canon. Also Peter preached in his Acts, the Book of Peter, several of his letters, The Preaching of Peter, and The Apocalypse of Peter, this is paraphrased, that one could find God as long as you could read the Gospels and the letters of the Apostles and then meditate on there meaning and God would come to you and explain the Word. Remember, this council is to build ONE catholic Church or to put it another way ONE IMPERIAL CHURCH with the Bishops beholding much of their power to the Emperor. SO a church that said by reading, prayer, meditation, maybe even fasting one could find God is not a Church structure that will support the throne. Obviously these works have to be lost to the "Official Canon". And after Nicaea, they were. However, the people still used them in their own churches towns, villages as supplements to the Canonical Bible. Thecala was not removed as a Saint until 1968 and Vatican One. The Petrine works were used in India until the Jesuits arrived with the Portuguese in the 1600's. The Gnostics still today use many of the non- canonical books in their service. See "Lost Scriptures: Books that DId Not Make It into the New Testament" by B. D. Ehrman.
With all this there is still a lot of good information in this work; for instance, Christ actually means King in Aramaic. The theology is extremely sound and the references will get you back into parts of the Bible that you may have forgotten or just never read, especially the Old Testament references. I would suggest that you have your Bible next to you to reread the Old Testament references and either before or after you read Peter you read the Ehrman work to get a more complete idea of what Peter did or may have said. Even Helyer admits that the "Acts of Peter' is quite possibly genuine or at least written by an eye witness.
Altogether a very readable, set up for a Sunday School Study Group in the SEC states, work with a boat load of great information.
The Council of Nicaea was called by Constantine to create one Church and one Creed. For in 306CE when Constantine I took over as Emperor he had to continually fight to hold the Empire together from both interior and exterior attacks. Many of these interior attacks came from the church that he made the Supreme Religion of the Empire. Constantine planned to use this newly legalized religion, Christianity, to unite the Empire behind one God and as Emperor he would, by the divine right of kings, be the head of that political entity and the Church would back his plans. All this can be read in Gibbons, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. In 325 Constantine called the Council of Nicaea. It met for four to six weeks and included all 1800 Bishops in the Empire. Well almost all, The Copts of Egypt and the Jacobines of Syria declined the Emperors invitation, also declining were the Churches in India and many of the ascetic monks of the Sinai, lower Egypt, Ethiopia, and the Yemen, History of Eastern Christianity, by Aziz S. Atyia. for further information on others who declined and their reasons. But I digress. Nicaea had a distinct political over tone. Constantine attended every session and chaired several himself. Many works that the people felt were Canonical were left out of the canon because they preached, to Constantine and the Bishops heresy. The acts of Thecala preached that all people once they become Christian also became born again virgins and to not defile their new found virginity with earth bound sex. Thecala was not the only book that preached this idea. In the Acts of Peter he also preaches new found virginity, an idea that takes hold on Romes elite wives and leads to Peter leaving Rome. There are also multiple letters from Paul preaching celibacy that were excluded at Nicaea from the canon. Also Peter preached in his Acts, the Book of Peter, several of his letters, The Preaching of Peter, and The Apocalypse of Peter, this is paraphrased, that one could find God as long as you could read the Gospels and the letters of the Apostles and then meditate on there meaning and God would come to you and explain the Word. Remember, this council is to build ONE catholic Church or to put it another way ONE IMPERIAL CHURCH with the Bishops beholding much of their power to the Emperor. SO a church that said by reading, prayer, meditation, maybe even fasting one could find God is not a Church structure that will support the throne. Obviously these works have to be lost to the "Official Canon". And after Nicaea, they were. However, the people still used them in their own churches towns, villages as supplements to the Canonical Bible. Thecala was not removed as a Saint until 1968 and Vatican One. The Petrine works were used in India until the Jesuits arrived with the Portuguese in the 1600's. The Gnostics still today use many of the non- canonical books in their service. See "Lost Scriptures: Books that DId Not Make It into the New Testament" by B. D. Ehrman.
With all this there is still a lot of good information in this work; for instance, Christ actually means King in Aramaic. The theology is extremely sound and the references will get you back into parts of the Bible that you may have forgotten or just never read, especially the Old Testament references. I would suggest that you have your Bible next to you to reread the Old Testament references and either before or after you read Peter you read the Ehrman work to get a more complete idea of what Peter did or may have said. Even Helyer admits that the "Acts of Peter' is quite possibly genuine or at least written by an eye witness.
Altogether a very readable, set up for a Sunday School Study Group in the SEC states, work with a boat load of great information.
September 23, 2023
I started reading this book because I was inspired to learn about Peter after reading NT Wright’s book on the Apostle Paul. This book was very different than Wright’s book, but I think I got more from it biblically. Again, it seems like 1/2 the book is highlighted & it now looks like a colorful porcupine with all the tabs sticking out of it. The deep dive into 1 & 2 Peter was especially good & I appreciated the later chapter discussing the apocrypha & pseudepigrapha. Glad I read it!
February 14, 2018
An excellent study of the person behind the name. The author does an excellent job of provding an understanding of the man who was to be named "the rock" on which Jesus would build his church.
July 25, 2020
الكتاب من الناحية الإيمانية كويس و فيه شغل :) لكنه كتاب دراسي جداً و ممل في قرايته
December 31, 2025
Helpful for my sermon series & glad I bought it but not amazing.
May 7, 2013
This is a good book, though it's a slow read. There are four sections--one on Peter's life as gleaned from 1st century sources, including the NT texts; a second on 1 Peter and themes found within; a third on 2 Peter; and finally the last section surveys traditions, legends, and the legacy of Peter. If one is interested in Peter, the person, one could skip the middle two sections, and if one is interested in the NT books, 1 and 2 Peter, one could skip the first and last section (though they would help to provide some context for the themes within 1 and 2 Peter).
This book would be good for pastors preaching on 1 or 2 Peter, or for those interested in Peter the person. Helyer is a conservative evangelical so he defends the traditional positions with charity and erudition.
The book has discussion questions for a study group, though I'm not sure what sort of group would be able to tackle a book like this.
Read my longer review here:
http://wheatonblog.wordpress.com/2013...
This book would be good for pastors preaching on 1 or 2 Peter, or for those interested in Peter the person. Helyer is a conservative evangelical so he defends the traditional positions with charity and erudition.
The book has discussion questions for a study group, though I'm not sure what sort of group would be able to tackle a book like this.
Read my longer review here:
http://wheatonblog.wordpress.com/2013...
February 20, 2014
This is a solid introduction to the apostle Peter's contribution to the New Testament. Helyer covers Peter's background as a Galilean fisherman, reviews significant moments in the Gospels and in Acts, and spends a great deal of time examining Peter's epistles. He also looks at some of the non-biblical, pseudepigraphical writings of Peter.
There were times when I wish this book examined some topics in greater depth. Still, Helyer draws together the major strands of Peter's life and writings in one book, which is its strength. He also rightly identifies major theological emphases of Peter, including the primary notion that Peter's theology is cross-shaped, and that the life of the Christian follows the way of the cross: suffering and glorification.
There were times when I wish this book examined some topics in greater depth. Still, Helyer draws together the major strands of Peter's life and writings in one book, which is its strength. He also rightly identifies major theological emphases of Peter, including the primary notion that Peter's theology is cross-shaped, and that the life of the Christian follows the way of the cross: suffering and glorification.
April 23, 2013
Very readable and could be useful as a textbook in that it has questions for students and suggestions for more reading - all of that is good. Where it falls down is in make a lot of critical assumptions without defending them. It reads the gospels as if they were one book, not four different ones with differing perspectives. There seems to be no sense of a problem with Petrine authorship of both Petrine letters - even John Calvin expressed a struggle about that. Skims over the data that Peter was illiterate, ignoring data in the Fathers. So the work is not a critical reading, but for a Sunday School class it would be an enjoyable read.
April 22, 2016
I have enjoyed reading this book. It's been a great scholarly and pastoral work.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews