The third series of “Tabernacle Sermons” delivered by N. B. Hardeman were presented in the Ryman Auditorium in Nashville, Tennessee in 1928. In the book, Hardeman’s Tabernacle Sermons, Volume III, we have those lessons in print. In that series of sermons, brother Hardeman spent a lot of his time and effort discussing what the church is, according to Scripture, and what it became according to human perversion. A few of the sermon titles are: “The Church During First Century,” “Development of Ecclesiasticism,” “Catholic Church of Sixteenth Century,” and “Primacy of Peter.”
In his sermon entitled “Primacy of Peter,” brother Hardeman explored the New Testament to see what was and was not said with regard to any such claim made by the Catholic Church. It is a very good lesson containing significant truths with regard to what the New Testament has to say about any so-called “primacy” of Peter or of his being the first pope. And regarding the importance of this claim regarding Peter’s being the foundation of the church, Hardeman remarks,
“I have a little book written by Cardinal Gibbons. The name of it is ‘The Faith of Our Fathers.’ It iswritten by a Catholic of unquestioned authority and sets forth their doctrine in such a simple waythat even I can understand it. The very heart and core of Catholicism is, that Peter was the first pope,and upon him the Church of God was built, and to him and his successors all authority has beengiven. That is the very keystone of the arch of faith in Catholic doctrine. Rob them of that onestatement and you have undermined the entire foundation upon which all else, according to theirstatements, must depend.” (p. 77)
The text usually resorted to by Catholics in order to prove the claim for Peter’s alleged “pope-hood” is Matthew 16:18. That passage follows the elicited confession that Peter made in response to the Lord’s inquiry, “But who say ye that I am?” Confidently Peter responds correctly because he had received a revelation from the Father (v. 17). Interestingly, in responding to Peter’s correct confession as to the Lord’s real identity, Jesus addresses Peter as the son of Jonah. This is in stark contrast to Jesus, himself, who is the son of the living God as rightly confessed by Peter.
But, just what exactly did Peter say? He said regarding Jesus, “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God.” Then we have the Lord’s response to that correct confession in our verse 18: “And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” Catholics have for years contended that Jesus established or built the church on Peter!
The ASV shows the Greek distinction in words used by a footnote. Peter’s name is petros, but the word “rock” used for the foundation of the church is petra. Hardeman points out that petros is masculine gender and that petra is feminine gender. Furthermore, he points out that petros refers to a small stone or “a bit, a fragment, a piece, a part from the mass” whereas petra refers to a “ledge, a cliff, a mass, a foundation like unto adamant” (p. 80). Gospel preachers over the years have made the same correct point in showing that Jesus was declaring that the church was to be built on the fact of the Lord’s being the son of God as announced in the truth of Peter’s confession.
Hardeman also makes an interesting point regarding the relationship of Peter to the suggestion that Jesus was making Peter the foundation whereas verse 19 gives him the role of “keeper of the gate.” Hardeman remarks,
“It is a violation of the principles of every language, for one character to occupy two different positions in the same illustration at the same time. I repudiate therefore the idea that Peter can play a two-fold part in this scenery. He cannot be represented as the keeper of the gate with the keys in his hand, and at the same time be the foundation upon which the thing rests.” (p. 81)
That is a good point!
We definitely know that Peter was to hold the keys (v. 19). We do not definitely know that he was the foundation. In fact, and as Hardeman shows (p. 81), the foundation of the church elsewhere is said to be Jesus (1 Cor. 3:10-11). Also, we might add that in consideration of the work of all the apostles (neither excluding nor overemphasizing Peter, Paul would say that the foundation of the church consisted of Jesus and the apostles and other prophets (Eph. 2:20). Peter did, in fact, use the keys given him to open the door to Jews (Acts 2), Samaritans (Acts 8), and pure-blood Gentiles (Acts 10). See also Acts 1:8. Peter was, indeed, present on the occasion when each ethnic group entered the church! He was given the keys; he was never declared to be the foundation. Paul affirmed that Peter was a part of the foundation only in connection with the other apostles and New Testament prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone (1 Cor. 3:10-11). In this passage, the foundation is viewed from the perspective of things accomplished by the Lord in his death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and coronation, and then of his use of the apostles and prophets in announcing the coming of the kingdom.
Hardeman’s sermon is rich in history and in proper analysis of New Testament doctrine. The reader would favor himself by reading or re-reading that great sermon. Hardeman correctly and significantly points out that nowhere in the New Testament is there anything whatever that even hints at Peter’s being the foundation of the church.
Now, just here I simply want to suggest a line of thought to give additional weight to what Hardeman presented in his great 1928 sermon. Please notice the following:
(1) If Peter were the first pope, then he was pope either during the first century or made pope in some subsequent or following century.
(2) If Peter were pope during the first century, the New Testament would mention it or refer to it in some way (and Hardeman rightly shows that there isn’t anything in the New Testament that gets close to suggesting it, much less declaring it).
(3) If the New Testament doesn’t mention Peter’s being the first pope, then if Peter were ever a pope, it would be because he became such in a subsequent or following century.
(4) But, if he became such in a subsequent or following century, then (1) the first century church was NOT built on Peter (and so, the Lord did NOT establish the church on him!), and (2) he later became such following the days of the apostles and, therefore, without divine authority whatever (by mere human authority only)!
(5) If someone could prove (and he cannot) that Peter did become an actual, divinely authorized pope in a subsequent or following century and was, therefore, the foundation of the church from that point on (and following Peter’s death), then he would have to admit that the foundation of the church beginning from that point in history was different from the foundation of the first century church which Jesus established and so began its history. So, Peter would have to be “pope” following his death and not during his life!
(For a history of the development of the historical papacy of the Catholic Church, the reader may consult “Pope, Papacy, Papal System,” in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia Of Religious Knowledge,” Vol. IX, pp. 126-133. According to the article, Catholic history claims Peter to be pope from 41 to 67 A.D. The Bible, of course, knows nothing of it, and the apostate system that eventually became Roman Catholicism is based on fiction rather than fact. And it is not the last religious organization to have such a basis). Consider the following True-False questions in light of New Testament teaching:
1. Peter was given the keys of the kingdom (True; Matt. 16:19).
2. There is a passage that shows that Peter was “the” foundation of the church (False).
3. Peter acted, at some point in his life, like he was the head of the church (False).
4. Other apostles deferred to Peter as having more authority than did they (False; Gal. 2:11-14; 2 Pet. 3:15-16).
5. Brethren who knew Peter in the first century recognized his superiority over the other apostles (False).
6. The Lord during his ministry authorized the coming church to regard some mere man as head over the whole church (False; Matt. 23:9; cf. Acts 14:23).
7. If any so-called “pope” has any alleged authority today over the Lord’s church, that supposed authority comes from some source other than Scripture, and that church, then, cannot be the Lord’s faithful church (True).
Biblical Notes 