False Teaching from Peter in John 21? If the First Pope Got it Wrong, to Whom do Catholics Turn

Introduction

In John 20:20-23, we encounter a fascinating incident involving Peter and “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” traditionally understood to be John. The passage reads:

“Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, ‘Lord, who is going to betray you?’) When Peter saw him, he asked, ‘Lord, what about him?’

Jesus answered, ‘If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.’

Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, ‘If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?’”

Apostolic Misinterpretation

Did you see it? “The rumor spread…” the false rumor. Here is a teaching of Christ delivered to the apostles that only they heard and spread throughout the church. Isn’t it interesting? Even after Jesus breathed on the Apostles and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit,” they still misinterpreted Christ’s words. The resulting rumor—that John would not die until Christ’s return—spread among the early believers.

This incident reveals a significant point: the Apostles, despite their unique relationship with Jesus and their reception of the Holy Spirit, could misunderstand and miscommunicate His teachings.

Oral Tradition vs. Written Scripture

Methinks this misunderstanding may provide evidence that there was no infallible, unwritten tradition alongside Scripture, as Catholics claim. If the Apostles themselves could misinterpret Jesus’ words, then oral tradition alone could not be deemed infallible. Generally reliable? Yes. But not infallible.

You see, the early Church recognized the need to codify their teachings into written Scripture to preserve the Apostolic Tradition that Christ gave them. The unique authority of Scripture lies in its role as the sole source of infallible Apostolic Tradition. The Apostles, while incredibly knowledgeable and filled with the Holy Spirit, were not infallible in their unwritten understandings and communications. It is only in the written Scripture, inspired by God, that we find an infallible record of divine truth. This collaboration of 100% man and 100% God in the writing of Scripture ensures its unique and unparalleled authority.

Catholic vs. Protestant Views on Tradition

For those unfamiliar with the differences between Catholic and Protestant views on Apostolic Tradition, here is a brief overview. Catholics believe in two lines of Apostolic Tradition: written and unwritten. They hold that the Apostles taught both through their writings (which became Scripture) and orally, and that both forms of teaching are infallible. The Catholic Church claims that it alone has the authority to define and interpret both the infallible Scriptures and the infallible unwritten Apostolic Tradition handed down through the ages.

In contrast, Protestants believe that all the necessary Apostolic Tradition was codified in the Scriptures. While the Apostles taught many things, only their writings, inspired by the Holy Spirit and recorded in the New Testament, are infallible. This means that the Protestant tradition does not recognize an infallible line of unwritten tradition. Again, only the Bible is the infallible source of divine revelation.

Peter and Apostolic Authority

What’s more intriguing is that Peter, often considered the first Pope and the “Vicar of Christ,” seems to be at the center of this misinterpretation. This doesn’t undermine Peter’s authority or role but highlights the human capacity for error, even among the most esteemed of the Apostles.

From what I can see, this incident should give Catholics pause because it shows Peter teaching something incorrect about Jesus’ words. “The rumor spread.” How was it to spread if this wasn’t taught?

If this part of the Apostolic Tradition was wrong, it raises questions about the reliability of other parts of the unwritten tradition. This adds fuel to the fire of an age old criticism of Roman Catholic doctrine. How can anyone be sure which parts of the oral tradition are accurate and which are not?

The Necessity of Scripture

The spread of this rumor and its correction in John’s Gospel underscores the necessity of written Scripture. The canonization process was not just about selecting authoritative texts but about preserving the core teachings of Jesus and the Apostles from potential misinterpretation. Oral traditions, while valuable, were susceptible to human error. The fixed, written record of Scripture became essential for maintaining doctrinal accuracy and continuity.

Conclusion

This incident serves as a cautionary tale about the reliability of oral tradition. It reminds us of the importance of having a definitive, written record of God’s word. The final and authoritative expression of Apostolic Tradition, I believe, is found only in the canon of Scripture, ensuring that we have an accurate and infallible account of Jesus’ teachings and the Apostolic witness.

In sum, the misinterpretation among the Apostles, particularly involving Peter, underscores the human propensity for error and the critical role of Scripture in safeguarding the truth. It is a testament to why all that is infallible and inspired was eventually codified in the Scriptures, providing a reliable foundation for our faith. This argues against the notion of an unwritten, infallible tradition that the Roman Catholic Church claims to interpret and preserve. We are not under any obligation to believe in an unwritten line of tradition handed down outside of Scripture.