I am preaching through the Gospel of John at church. We are a few weeks in and, of course, run into Peter’s future name change. And of course, I want to argue with Rome. And I want to do so using the simple argument of John Calvin, “a stone is not a head”.
It’s a beautiful event. Andrew, who is Simon Peter’s brother, believed in Jesus and then told his brother about Jesus.
“He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).”
John 1:42 ESV
Now, you probably know that the event that is foreshadowed here is told to us in the Gospel of Matthew. That passage is important to Roman Catholicism and the Papacy.
“Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.”
Matthew 16:13-20 ESV
This is the passage of Scripture that the Pope and all of Roman Catholicism believes his authority is revealed. It is here that the Pope dressed in his gaudy attire is said to be justified. But it is just here that I would like to take aim today.
The Pope claims to be the Vicar of Christ on Earth. Now, that term is relatively meaningless to us, for the most part. No one says “vicar” anymore. A vicar is one that substitutes for someone else. According to Rome, Jesus is the Head of the Church, but since Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father another head is needed. And according to Roman Catholics that man is the Pope.
And more importantly, this claim is said to come from this declaration to Peter.
It is just here that the Protestant Reformers took aim, and we should as well. They understood the problem with this. Notice what Calvin said in his commentary over the Gospel of John.
All the godly, indeed, may justly be called Peters, (stones,) which, having been founded on Christ, are fitted for building the temple of God; but he alone is so called on account of his singular excellence. Yet the Papists act a ridiculous part, when they substitute him in the place of Christ, so as to be the foundation of the Church, as if he too were not founded on Christ along with the rest of the disciples; and they are doubly ridiculous when out of a stone they make him a head. (John Calvin, Commentary on John)
I would like for you to notice what Calvin says here. He readily admits that there is an “excellence” in Peter that gets him the name “Peter”. But, as with every Protestant in history and Church history for hundreds of years before the creation of the office of Pope, they did not see Peter as being the head of the Church.
I believe that there is no office of Pope. Along with other Protestants I believe there was a Bishop of Rome, but he was just a bishop/pastor. He didn’t hold any official title beyond that. He wasn’t first among equals, he was a pastor.
So, what is happening here? What did Jesus mean when he told Peter, “on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.””
We shouldn’t immediately jump to a conclusion based on traditions. We should look into the pages of Scripture and figure this out. While it may not seem immediately obvious, there are a few options.
- Peter alone is talked to here. Peter alone has the keys to the kingdom. This is the position of Rome.
- Jesus’s declaration was about Peter’s declaration of Christ and not Peter himself.
- Jesus’s declaration was about Peter, but Peter was a representative of the whole group. What Jesus declared to Peter was for all the Apostles.
Exploring Door #1
The Roman Church believes that Peter alone is discussed here. And if that were the case, then I’d expect for there to be hints that the other apostles took this teaching and ran with it. But this isn’t really what we see.
Peter does oftentimes lead the disciples. He is the first to preach after Pentecost. He really does seem to be a leader.
But his preeminence is often overstated in an attempt to make this argument. When the Church meets together at the Jerusalem Council, Peter’s stature is seen. He is influential, but not the decider. That lot fell to James, who was apparently leading this first church council, not Peter (Acts 15:13-21). Remember, in the lead up to this council Paul felt free to confront Peter “to his face”, and rightfully so. Peter needed it (Galatians 2:11). Then at the meeting it was James, not Peter that ran things. James summed up the testimonies of Peter and Paul and made a declaration. Peter didn’t run the meeting. And no one around him expected him to do so.
This is similar to how Peter viewed himself in the New Testament. He didn’t see himself as being above the rest. In fact, he calls himself a “fellow elder” (1 Peter 5:1). When he appeals to these leaders in the church, he does not do so with a sense of authority over them but as a fellow elder in the Church. This is a far cry from Peter wielding authority as the first Pope.
Now, do I believe that James outranked Peter among the Apostles? No. I do not. But it is telling. James did not feel the need to let Peter run the Jerusalem Council meeting in Acts 15. Paul felt free to confront Peter in the lead up to that meeting, which is discussed in Galatians. And Peter didn’t act as if he were the vicar of Christ on Earth.
The Apostles apparently did not take Peter’s words to mean that Peter was the head of the Church on Earth. Door #1 seems to be closed.
There is a note that should be strung here. The Church did not, at first, treat Peter as being above the other Apostles. Nor did they treat his office as special. A short treatment of this is found in pages 596-598 of Dr. Gregg R. Allison’s book Historical Theology.
In short, this developed over hundreds of years within one part of the Church. A key thing happened to bring this to the fore in the 250’s when Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage and Stephen the Bishop of Rome, had a disagreement during the Novatian Schism. I won’t spend a lot of time on that, but understand that we can pinpoint a moment as being a major part of the addition of this novel understanding of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
Cyprian understood what everyone else had before this, and Protestants still do concerning this declaration and the Bishop of Rome. But, surprise surprise, the Bishop of Rome claimed being in that position gave him the right to settle the matter. Cyprian refused to submit.
Confusion over this persists even to today. In fact, in 451 the Council of Chalcedon affirmed the equality of the Roman and Constantinople churches. Rome rejected that canon of the council and still does today.
Door #1 closes when you read a little church history as well.
Exploring Door #2 Jesus’s Declaration Was About Peter’s Declaration
This is a confusing way to word things, I know. But it is basically the idea that Jesus was not talking about Peter. He was saying that the rock upon which the Church would be built is who Jesus is.
There are a lot of merits to this position, for repeatedly the Scriptures state that Jesus is the rock upon which the Church is built.
Peter himself wrote,
“For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.”
1 Peter 2:6-8 ESV
This is obviously a safer interpretation, for it pulls from the rest of Scripture and draws its conclusions that way. It doesn’t innovate a new office. I do, however, have a problem with this position. And it is that it seems to sidestep what Jesus said.
Jesus was talking to Peter about Peter. That seems obvious enough to me. It just seems to avoid what Jesus is saying.
Now, there is a variation of this argument that is more compelling. Dr. Gregg R. Allison puts it this way in his book on Roman Catholicism,
Whereas some evangelical theologians interpret “this rock” as a reference to Peter, and others as a reference to his confession, a more plausible understanding is that the rock is Peter in virtue of his confession. Thus, Jesus promises that he is about “to institute a new assembly of his people gathered under him, “my church, he calls it, involving the Twelve and built on Peter and his authoritative word, the confession of faith in the identity of Jesus of Nazareth. “
This would mean that Jesus was talking to Peter. But Jesus’s declaration was that a new people were being created built on Peter and the authoritative word he proclaimed.
This interpretation has the benefit of taking the conversation seriously and not creating an office that the rest of Scripture and a few hundred years of Church History doesn’t recognize.
Although, I’m not sold there either.
Exploring Door #3 : Jesus’s Declaration Was About Peter As The Representative For The Group
This is where I tip my hand and say, this is what I believe to be going on here. I believe this to best deal with the text, the rest of the New Testament, and the first 250 years of Church History.
When Peter stepped forward and made his proclamation, he did so under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, Peter and the rest of the Apostles would be the foundation upon which the Church was built.
Jesus is the cornerstone. Upon Him the entirety of our faith rests. But the Apostles teaching concerning Jesus is the foundation for the church. Jesus is the cornerstone, their teaching is the foundation.
“So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.”
Ephesians 2:19-22 ESV
“And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”
Revelation 21:14 ESV
The reason I favor this interpretation is that it seems to take the dialogue between Jesus and Peter seriously while at the same time seem to be how the Apostles themselves understood Jesus’s words. They didn’t leave that conversation thinking Peter was going to be the boss someday. They would look back at that conversation and see that their teaching of Christ was the very foundation of the Church.
Don’t Make a Stone a Head
The worst thing you could do when thinking about that text is to make a stone a head. The worst thing you could do is create an office called “Vicar of Christ” as you tried to make a stone a head.
The only way one could jump to this conclusion is by ignoring the rest of Scripture and the history of the early church.
Leave a Reply