Acts 12. 1-17, 1 Peter 2. 19-end, Matthew 16. 13-19
Apart from Jesus himself and perhaps John the Baptist, Peter is the person in the Gospels, about whom we hear most and with whom, with all his faults, I think it’s easiest to identify. Fallible he may be, but he is one of the first disciples to be called and seems become something of a “shop steward” for the others and yet he was also in the inner circle of disciples, the “leadership group”, and trusted for special tasks by Jesus. Later he is a, if not the, leader of the early church and by tradition, the first bishop of Rome, with all that would entail.
We should therefore, be a little sceptical about the story we heard in today’s Gospel; the great Confession at Caesarea Philippi and Jesus’ commission to Peter. Not for the first time, Peter recognises Jesus for who he is, and in response, Jesus makes him the foundation of the church and gives him the keys of the kingdom of heaven- not incidentally the pearly gates themselves, although close enough perhaps. This does look rather as if it might be justification after the event, a tradition created, or embellished to support Peter’s position as leader and later, of course, to confirm, if not establish, the authority in the church of the bishop Rome. But I’d prefer to set those doubts aside and treat this story on its face value, as, enigmatic though it is, I think we can learn something about the church and how it should be from one of its foundation myths (whether or not the myth is historically accurate).
One reason for thinking the story true is that it is so surprising; superficially, Peter is an odd choice for the leadership role. In the Gospels he is impulsive and volatile and not apparently at all intellectual. Peter speaks and acts before he thinks. He is not exactly officer material. It is Peter who takes a sword to the Garden of Gethsemane and uses it- in an act of extraordinary folly- to cut off the High Priest’s servant’s ear. It would be an inspired headmaster who chose Peter to be Head Boy.
He has particular thing about water; demanding a shower having initially refused to allow Jesus to wash his feet; prepared to walk on the water to meet Jesus in the storm, until reality catches up and he is overcome by the waves; later, when, after the crucifixion, he and his companions had returned to fish in Galilee he jumps into the water again having recognised Jesus on the shore, but not before putting his clothes back on (this is surely his oddest quirk; I general get un-dressed to go swimming) This wateriness is perhaps intended to emphasise his superficially un-rock qualities. Earlier Jesus had described the superficial Christian as one who built a house on sand which could not withstand the rain and flood as rock would. Rocks and water are antitheses.
Most famously Peter will insist that he will never deny that he knew Jesus, and goes on to do so three time before the cock has crowed. The peculiar irony of that episode is that Peter did know Jesus, sooner and better than any of his companions. He is the first to respond to Jesus’ call and with typical impulsiveness abandons his job, his father and home to follow Jesus. Through all this precipitate behaviour there runs a crucial thread; Peter is perceptive; his response is wild, but his understanding of Jesus, is instant but solid; sudden and yet capable of growth in time.
It is this power of recognition that comes to a head at Caesarea Philippi; and this time Jesus’ response is sudden and overwhelming as Peter is called the foundation stone of the church and given the key attributes that the church needs; on a corporate level, the means as a community of bringing about the kingdom of heaven, and at a personal level, salvation in the forgiveness of sins, the means of turning broken or inadequate lives into full and eternal life. Calling Peter a rock has been seen as a joke and evidence that Our Lord had a sense of humour- I can only say that if so, this is about the only instance of it. But joke or not, it is deep; the crucial characteristic of the Christian is the ability to recognise Christ, and of course to see what that entails. Peter had that ability.
The Peter of Acts is rather less impulsively volatile; the experience of the Resurrection and the power of the Holy Spirit seem to have matured him. He seems to assume leadership naturally. Peter is not a substitute for Christ but he does begin to take on some Christ-like characteristics ; his authority rests on the one hand in his new found skill in preaching- which is obviously inspired and successful. He is also a miracle worker, healing the cripple at the gate of the Temple and later, in Joppa, raising Tabitha from the dead. Both stories are told in a way that reminds us of Jesus’ miracles. You might, of course, ask how else they could be told, but the simple miraculous facts are themselves reminiscent of Jesus’ miracles.
There is surely a parallel imagery in Jesus the corner stone and Peter the rocky foundation. This is a parallelism that goes further, I think, because in the story of Peter’s imprisonment and escape I can’t help hearing echoes of the stories of the crucifixion and resurrection. Both take place at Passover; both involve the secular power persuaded to execute a man innocent of any secular crime to appease the religious authorities. Squads of soldiers guard Peter as they guarded Jesus on the cross and his body in the tomb. Angels are the means of release and as they are messengers of the resurrection. Both Jesus and Peter walk through locked doors and gates. In both stories reality and illusion are mixed; and both men are hard to recognise and identified by their voices – in both cases initially by women, the Maries and Rhoda the maid- whom the men do not believe (to be fair their behaviour is a bit flighty! Understandably so.) I’m conscious how easy it is to hear such echoes –as it is with doubles entendres when once on the wavelength, and, of course even if I am right to hear them, what I am hearing is the author’s telling, rather than hard facts. But then this is true of most of what we read in the Bible.
Let us assume that Luke-or the author of Acts- is developing Peter’s character from ideas which were sown in the Gospels stories; the kernel of those ideas is most starkly expressed in John’s uncompromising words when Jesus says “ I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also” Peter’s greatest gift is, as we saw, to recognise Jesus for who he was and to believe in him, and, falteringly at first, and with all the failings of his human nature, to attempt to follow Christ and become Christ-like. At Caesarea Philippi he is told that it was not him that spoke the words of recognition; “For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven” When full recognition has come in the form of the Resurrection, and full inspiration from the Holy Ghost, Peter moves forward as we have seen him do.
In this he is well chosen as the foundation of the Church because it is surely our first task as a Church to recognise Jesus for what he is- the way to understand God and the means of expressing God’s love in his world. That is our task individually, and together, as we become Christ’s body on earth. Peter for all his human fallibility understood the first really important thing and it brought him eventually to leadership of the nascent church, Christ’s body working as it still works in the world through our efforts. Better for us like Peter to blurt out our heartfelt response and some times to flounder and fail, than to remain deaf or impassive to that call. Amen.