Peter
and the Rock
Stephen
Terry
Commentary
for the May 21, 2016 Sabbath School Lesson
“Andrew,
Simon Peter’s brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who
had followed Jesus. The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon
and tell him, ‘We have found the Messiah’ (that is, the Christ). And he brought
him to Jesus.”
“Jesus
looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas’
(which, when translated, is Peter).” John 1:40-42, NIV
There seems to be some confusion in the gospels
regarding just how Peter came to be one of Jesus’ disciples. In Matthew’s
gospel, Jesus calls Peter and his brother to follow Him, both at the same time,
while they are fishing. In John’s gospel, we find a transition from some
disciples following John the Baptist and then being drawn to Jesus. One of
those disciples who transitions, Andrew, goes and tells his brother Peter, who then
comes to see Jesus. At that meeting, Jesus gives him a new name, “Cephas,” which
is the Aramaic form of Peter and means the same thing, “rock.” For some, this
is problematic as they cannot fathom that Jesus who is the Rock, would be
referring to Peter as rock. Some facile explanations have come up over the
years such as one claiming Jesus was calling Peter a little stone or even a
pebble while referring to Himself as a large rock. However, it has been my
experience that such contrived explanations in order to support a biased
perspective usually lack legitimacy. It may be as simple as a little word play
by Jesus who was known for his similes, such as the camel through the eye of a
needle.[i] Because of the impossible
scenarios conjured up by these metaphors, they tend to invite contrived
explanations to resolve the dissonance.
Even with the camel example, some try to assert that
there is a gate at Jerusalem called the “Eye of the Needle” through which a
camel would have to unburden itself to pass through. This was thought to be
more plausible than a camel actually going through the eye of a real needle. However,
there are several problems with this explanation. First, there is no such gate.
Second, the word the gospel writer used for “needle” (ραφιδος)
was literally a sewing needle. Third, both Jesus and the disciples recognized
it was impossible[ii]
for such a simile to take place, which argues against something that was
possible such as a camel through a gate.
In the same way, Jesus addressing Peter as He did may
have been emphasizing the irony of Peter’s name rather than attempting to
establish a theological foundation for a modern denomination. Jesus may have
simply been saying, “Oh, your name is Peter which means Rock (Cephas). But this
is the Rock the church will be built upon, while indicating Himself. Those who
think that God would never use humor in this way may have trouble with this
explanation, but God has amply demonstrated that humor is a part of His
character long before the birth of Jesus. For instance, He caused Abraham to
become a father after waiting a century for that promise to be fulfilled. Sarah
could see the humor in that and laughed about it. The humor was so apparent
that they even named that child Isaac, which means “He laughs,” a reference to
God’s sense of humor.
It is also evident from Peter’s character and his many
vacillations that Jesus was likely not referring to him when He spoke of the
foundation of the church. Jesus was concerned about Satan’s influence over the
disciple in a way He did not express to the other disciples. He confronted him
directly about it at one point, addressing Satan over his attempt to influence the
Savior through Peter.[iii] At another time, He
warned Peter of Satan’s desire to “sift” him.[iv] But when Peter responded by
boasting of his loyalty, Jesus cautioned him over his imprudence, an imprudence
that was followed soon after by Peter’s betrayal, not once but thrice, of the
Messiah.[v] This seems a somewhat
unstable platform on which to build a church. Nonetheless, some might still
maintain that Peter learned from his mistakes and became the rock Jesus spoke
of. However, does the evidence support this?
When we consider those that advocate for Peter’s primacy
in the early church, there are perhaps no stronger advocates than the Roman
Catholic Church. Some in that denomination have even gone so far as to declare
Peter the first pope. But even if one is sympathetic to that perspective, the
church’s own history tends to deny its validity. For instance, the church’s
theology is primarily based on Pauline theology, not Petrine. As an example, we
need only consider the idea of a distinct clergy ordained to be dispensers of
grace in a hierarchical manner to the laity, with those outside the church seen
as being beyond the pale of grace. However, when we examine Peter’s writings,
we see instead a universal priesthood with no hierarchical distinction.[vi] He did not see priestly
ordination as limited to a clerical class, but instead extending to the entire nation.
It is Paul, not Peter, who gives us the idea of bishops, deacons, etc.[vii] It is startling how a
church claiming to be founded on Peter’s ministry should depart so far from that
same teaching. But in all fairness, the various institutional churches have a
pretty consistent reputation for also departing from theological veracity in
favor of interpretations that favor consolidation of power and wealth. The
Catholic Church is not the only denomination guilty of somewhat obvious
grabbing for power. We have come a long way from the simple house churches of
the apostolic period. While Peter may have recognized a universal ordination to
ministry, most modern churches do not.
Perhaps the greatest error influencing all of this is
the idea of perpetuating a priestly class along the lines of a Levitical model.
In that model, the priests stood as intercessors between God and man. They were
set apart through ordination to be a unique class, supported by the rest of the
people through a system of tithes and offerings. It did not take long for that
system to become perverted. Eli’s two sons, Phineas and Hophni, greedily
claimed the best of the offerings for themselves, not even allowing the
offering to be boiled first in the prescribed manner.[viii] This same spirit has
been manifest throughout the history of the institutional church as those who
practice priest craft have developed ever more cunning ways to increase their
accounts. It was seen with the selling of indulgences by Johann Tetzel[ix] in the time of Martin
Luther. In order to create a stream of money flowing into the Catholic Church
which was building Saint Peter’s Basilica, he offered, for a price, to make it
possible to deliver individuals from purgatory, a netherworld between heaven
and hell. Never mind that there was no biblical basis for purgatory, the idea still
served well as a vehicle for fleecing the laity.
Another practice that enriched the church was the practice
of Simony. Positions of clerical authority were for sale to whomever could pay
the highest price. That price was then often paid by mandatory tithes and
offerings collected from the laity. Anything raised beyond the price of the
bishopric or other office, the cleric was free to keep for himself. We still
see remnants of this practice today even in Protestant churches which commonly
require that in order to hold a position of authority one must be a faithful
payer of tithes and offerings. Thus, it is still possible to buy one’s way into
power over those who may be struggling to buy food and medicine. Those more impoverished
brothers and sisters are faced with the choice of paying money to the church in
order to have a say in the power politics of the denomination, or they may choose
instead to take care of their families. It is not hard to see how this can
predispose the institutional church to plutocracy. In this the church can find
itself not only abandoning Petrine theology,[x] but Jacobine as well.[xi]
One cannot help but wonder at the place the church has
arrived at, today, based on Jesus’ simple and perhaps ironic statement to Peter
about rocks. That the church should use Peter as a justification for the
perpetuating of an exclusive and at times predatory clergy is the ultimate
irony, for Peter never encouraged such a thing. Perhaps we should return to the
church of the apostolic times and rediscover the idea of a universal priesthood
that excludes no one from ministry who has willingly come to Jesus. Perhaps the
ordination of blood, water and Spirit that occurs with baptism[xii] is the only ordination we
should recognize. At a time when our large and wealthy denominations exercise
such great power that they are not only tempted to influence political
movements to their benefit, but also to consolidate power and influence as
though they intend to occupy the sin-tainted earth forever, maybe we need to
restore what we have lost. We may have truly become a Laodicean people more
reliant on our own wealth, power and influence than the humility of a carpenter’s
Son, born two thousand years ago, who is knocking at our heart’s door seeking
entrance.[xiii]
