Thank you so much for taking the time to articulate this problem, Anna, and for your commitment to Jesus and the hope of reforming His church. I may have briefly mentioned a scholar in passing who argues that John 6 portrays Peter as giving the keys of the kingdom back to Jesus. Here is a longer quote from Paul Anderson, where he talks about “The deconstructionist/reconstructionist words of Peter” in John 6:68-69 (published back in 1996 by the way, long before deconstruction was “sexy”):
“Simon Peter comes to the rescue and as in the Synoptic tradition serves as the spokesman for the twelve. In his response he echoes Jesus' claim in 6:63 that indeed, his words (remata) are spirit and life, but between vss. 63 and 67 the subject of the clause shifts from the words themselves to the source of the words. The implication is that Peter's confession in John 6 is designed to reaffirm the source of life-giving words: Jesus. When contrasted with the Matthean addition to the Marcan confession account (cf. Matt. 16:17-19) in which Jesus is portrayed as endowing Peter with his authority, it becomes clear that in John 6:68ff it is Peter who reaffirms Jesus' sole authority. In other words, Peter is portrayed as figuratively returning the keys of the kingdom to the Johannine Jesus.
It is seldom realized just how shocking Peter's confession in John would have seemed to a Christian audience in the last third of the century, during the pinnacle of Peter's popularity! It is doubtful that the evangelist knew the Matthean rendition of Peter's confession in its written form by the time John 6 was written, and he may not even have been familiar with the written form of Mark. However, one may assume with reasonable certainty that in the years following Peter's death, the popularity of Peter would have increased sufficiently for the evangelist to be familiar with at least the sentiment underlying the 'entrusting of the keys' narrative in Matthew, let alone its conventional function among the churches. When Matthew's and John's renditions of the confession narrative are considered side-by-side, it is clear that in John it is not Jesus who gives authority to Peter (and those who follow in his wake), but it is Peter who affirms the sole authority of Jesus. What may appear to be a slight variation in detail is actually an indication of a fundamental difference in ideology. Peter's confession in John is meant to disturb.
Therefore, vs. 68 is both constructive and deconstructive. It corrects the view that the means by which christocracy [Christ ruling his church] occurs is to be understood as mediated through an institutional model, and it affirms the life-giving function of the voice of Jesus, which in turn alludes to the pneumatically-mediated, christocratic model developed more fully in the Paraklētos sections of chs. 14-16.” (Paul Anderson, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel”
I come from the low-church evangelical world—no vestments, no incense, no formal ordination rites. But the same priestly elevation was there, just with a different accent.
The pastor wasn’t “holy” by doctrinal declaration—but by function. He alone taught. He alone baptized. He alone presided at the table. He cast the vision, made the calls, interpreted the Word, and stood elevated—literally and symbolically—above the rest.
No one said “clergy and laity,” but that’s exactly how it worked. A holy class emerged—not through robes and rites, but through résumé, platform presence, and seminary polish.
And the rest of us, however unconsciously, came to believe that ministry belonged to the stage. That the sacred was handled by someone else. That God spoke primarily through a mic.
We keep pouring new wine into old wineskins.
Jesus tore the veil. But we keep sewing it back up—just in different colors.
Whether in stained glass or stage lights, when only a few are entrusted to speak, serve, and lead, the body is robbed, the saints are stunted, and the very system Jesus fulfilled is quietly rebuilt.
“In the Reformed tradition, they tie together the preached word and sacrament by the one term ‘Word.’ They see the Lord's Supper as the visible Word and the preached Word as the audible Word, which insinuates a comparable ‘holiness’ attached to both.”
Manoeuvres to sew up the veil are widespread in Protestant denominations, even those which don’t claim to be Reformed a la Calvinism.
“Magical view of ordination” really captures a lot. 😮💨💯
I am married to a priest. I so value the office. And yet the way different corners of the church prioritize the sense of calling of a man or this kind of magical thinking *over* the well-being of those entrusted to their care? Just leaves me thinking of Ezekiel 34 and the jostling rams muddying the waters.
Well said. Those misplaced priorities are ironically seen in John 20:15-17, in which many see Jesus‘s appointing Peter to authoritative shepherding office, but the passage alludes to and brings forward Ezekiel 34 to that commission.
Thank you. I was in the PCA for only a couple years but saw this problem more in a Reformed Baptist church. It’s like they don’t really believe in the idea of the priesthood of all believers or that I can have the same access to Jesus as the elders or even my husband.
They truly do not believe in the priesthood of all believers. There is no other conclusion to draw. As one historian puts it, that doctrine is one of the “lost doctrines of the reformation.”
Perhaps I'm currently in a non-denominational church because of how irritating I find denominational thinking; elder-only distribution of communion is a wild take! (I also think the PCA will have chronic challenges like this because of the rise of the EPC and the loss of the moderates from the PCA into that group.)
I feel like the "anti-Donatist" impulse is essential regarding the sacraments of course, but the problem is how that "spills over" into preaching, church discipline, etc., as if those remain pure and undefiled despite the hypocrisy of the minister as well.
But as you've highlighted, there are two sacraments, and preaching isn't one of them, nor is church discipline! And therefore, those other actions are HIGHLY influenced by the character of the minister.
Yes, John, again you have seen right through to the heart of the issue. They have "sacramentalized" themselves in pronouncing spiritual and sacramental union between the their preached word and their exercise of the keys of discipline. In the Reformed tradition, they tie together the preached word and sacrament by the one term "Word." They see the Lord's Supper as the visible Word and the preached Word as the audible Word, which insinuates a comparable "holiness" attached to both. So, yes, in my own instance, I unknowingly assaulted the pastor's own understanding of himself in giving respectful, brief input on his sermon, and the result of my "assault" on the sacredness of his preached word was what appeared to me as the jingling of his keys before me to remind me of my place. The whole ordeal was quite dehumanizing.
The connection drawn between baptism, eucharist, and preaching reminds me of an essay from John Webster I keep turning to. Webster was generally reluctant to use “sacramental” language, but he argues that the reading of Scripture—not preaching—is *the* audible word, holy and set apart. I particularly like his phrase “nontransferable agency.”
“In the words of the prophets and apostles, Jesus Christ declares himself. The crucial factor here is Jesus Christ’s personal, nontransferable agency—that is, the fact that he himself declares himself. At his glorification to the Father’s right hand, Jesus Christ does not resign his office of self-communication, handing it over to the texts of Scripture which are henceforth in and of themselves his voice in the world. Rather, in the texts of Holy Scripture, the living One himself speaks: Scripture is his prophet and his apostle. Holy Scripture is “holy” because it is sanctified: that is, it is set apart by God for the service of his self-announcement. Scripture is the elect, consecrated auxiliary through which the living One walks among the churches and makes known his presence. For this reason, Scripture is a transcendent moment in the life of the church.” (The Visible Attests the Visible)
To answer your question about other Protestant traditions:
My experience is that Lutherans, like Presbyterians, elevate the clergy in terms of administration of the sacraments, which are strictly safe-guarded and administered by Lutheran pastors. But even in this, the Lutheran pastor humbles himself to accept being served, alongside his own family, by the elders, which didn’t happen in Presbyterianism, where the minister served the elements to himself, apart from his family.
While baptisms are generally performed by a Lutheran pastor, Lutherans do teach that “in the absence of a pastor, any Christian may administer Holy Baptism.” If an emergency baptism is administered by a layperson, it “shall immediately be reported to the pastor for its recognition by the congregation.”
(The quotes are from a booklet called A Simple Explanation of Baptism, published by Concordia Publishing House.)
The understanding of the Keys of the Kingdom doctrine by the Westminster divines seems to fly in the face of Jesus’ own words in John 10:28 - 29: “… no man will snatch them out of my hand… no one will snatch them out of my Father’s hand.” “No man,” says Jesus, except He was apparently forgetting about the ordained officers of the fly-by-night, 50 years young, denomination of the PCA! (It’s not just the PCA that attempts to usurp the power of the Father and the Son to hold fast to souls. The OPC also teaches that submission to Church Authority via the 4th membership vow is “God’s provision” for the safekeeping of souls. Not sure how that squares with Jesus’ own words in John 10:28-29.)
Or how it squares with 1 Peter 2:25, Christ as the Shepherd and Overseer of our souls. I believe that 1 Peter 2:9 gives us further fulfillment of the three offices not in the "special office" of king-priests who mediate the prophetic Word and sacrament, but in "you," a chosen race, a royal (king) priesthood (priest), so that "you," may proclaim (prophet) the praises of the one who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. What is put forward in the PCA and OPC is a patriarchal model of church government, which depreciates the priesthood of all believers and can obscure the only Mediator between God and man, while at the same time denying the elders' own need for care from those in their congregations. This article lays out a good overview of the mistranslations that would lead to the OPC vow: https://centerbarnsteadcc.org/are-elders-supposed-to-rule-over-the-church-and-is-the-church-supposed-to-obey-them/
Sarah, it was encouraging to me that the article was written by a pastor, who is willing to take a sincere look at what the New Testament texts actually say, even though he might lose some of the prestige and power competing views might offer him.
Yes, Sarah, it is very interesting that proistimi is used in both 1 Timothy 3:5 and 5:17 and both times it is in the active voice, though it is often translated as if it is in the middle voice. See how Friberg distinguishes the middle and active of proistimi:
[Fri] προΐστημι 2aor. προέστην; pf. ptc. προεστώς; intransitively in the NT; (1) middle put oneself (responsibly) at the head, lead, direct, rule (1T 5.17); (2) active, of a protective leadership care for, help, give aid (1TH 5.12); (3) of responsible preoccupation with something devote oneself to, engage in, strive for (TI 3.8)
IN using the active voice, Paul is emphasizing protection, care, and help as he speaks under inspiration.
On the "keys of the kingdom", is not this simply the gospel of Jesus given to Peter and the other disciples to preach, that belief in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God, opens the kingdom, and continued unbelief/denial of him shuts the kingdom?
I come from a Baptist tradition, but have left a congregation over leadership. Some should never be granted the office of pastor/elder or even deacon, because they covet power and immediately begin to lord it over the flock once they are granted office, using it as a platform to advance their pet theories and address their past grievances.
On the other hand, I had one elderly pastor who, upon being called to the church, taught about the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of every believer, and about the greater punishment that an unfaithful or false teacher would incur. He told the congregation so many words to examine the Bible for ourselves, since we had the Spirit to teach us, and to challenge him when we thought he was in error - for both ours and his sake. I did that once or twice; and he responded well each time, even if he was not convinced by my reasons (I was much younger then). My questions never changed his benevolent and caring attitude toward me.
Thank you so much for taking the time to articulate this problem, Anna, and for your commitment to Jesus and the hope of reforming His church. I may have briefly mentioned a scholar in passing who argues that John 6 portrays Peter as giving the keys of the kingdom back to Jesus. Here is a longer quote from Paul Anderson, where he talks about “The deconstructionist/reconstructionist words of Peter” in John 6:68-69 (published back in 1996 by the way, long before deconstruction was “sexy”):
“Simon Peter comes to the rescue and as in the Synoptic tradition serves as the spokesman for the twelve. In his response he echoes Jesus' claim in 6:63 that indeed, his words (remata) are spirit and life, but between vss. 63 and 67 the subject of the clause shifts from the words themselves to the source of the words. The implication is that Peter's confession in John 6 is designed to reaffirm the source of life-giving words: Jesus. When contrasted with the Matthean addition to the Marcan confession account (cf. Matt. 16:17-19) in which Jesus is portrayed as endowing Peter with his authority, it becomes clear that in John 6:68ff it is Peter who reaffirms Jesus' sole authority. In other words, Peter is portrayed as figuratively returning the keys of the kingdom to the Johannine Jesus.
It is seldom realized just how shocking Peter's confession in John would have seemed to a Christian audience in the last third of the century, during the pinnacle of Peter's popularity! It is doubtful that the evangelist knew the Matthean rendition of Peter's confession in its written form by the time John 6 was written, and he may not even have been familiar with the written form of Mark. However, one may assume with reasonable certainty that in the years following Peter's death, the popularity of Peter would have increased sufficiently for the evangelist to be familiar with at least the sentiment underlying the 'entrusting of the keys' narrative in Matthew, let alone its conventional function among the churches. When Matthew's and John's renditions of the confession narrative are considered side-by-side, it is clear that in John it is not Jesus who gives authority to Peter (and those who follow in his wake), but it is Peter who affirms the sole authority of Jesus. What may appear to be a slight variation in detail is actually an indication of a fundamental difference in ideology. Peter's confession in John is meant to disturb.
Therefore, vs. 68 is both constructive and deconstructive. It corrects the view that the means by which christocracy [Christ ruling his church] occurs is to be understood as mediated through an institutional model, and it affirms the life-giving function of the voice of Jesus, which in turn alludes to the pneumatically-mediated, christocratic model developed more fully in the Paraklētos sections of chs. 14-16.” (Paul Anderson, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel”
I come from the low-church evangelical world—no vestments, no incense, no formal ordination rites. But the same priestly elevation was there, just with a different accent.
The pastor wasn’t “holy” by doctrinal declaration—but by function. He alone taught. He alone baptized. He alone presided at the table. He cast the vision, made the calls, interpreted the Word, and stood elevated—literally and symbolically—above the rest.
No one said “clergy and laity,” but that’s exactly how it worked. A holy class emerged—not through robes and rites, but through résumé, platform presence, and seminary polish.
And the rest of us, however unconsciously, came to believe that ministry belonged to the stage. That the sacred was handled by someone else. That God spoke primarily through a mic.
We keep pouring new wine into old wineskins.
Jesus tore the veil. But we keep sewing it back up—just in different colors.
Whether in stained glass or stage lights, when only a few are entrusted to speak, serve, and lead, the body is robbed, the saints are stunted, and the very system Jesus fulfilled is quietly rebuilt.
And all the while, we say it’s biblical.
They sew up the veil by making out that Protestant clergy are mediators and gatekeepers between us and God.
John Calvin was the chief offender, and his followers still do it.
Calvin and his followers deemed Pulpit Preaching By Ordained Males to be as authoritative as God’s Word.
Ruth Magnusson Davis has documented how the early Calvinists/Puritans did this. https://newmatthewbible.org/The-Puritan-Rejection-of-the-Tyndale-Matthew-Bible.pdf
Anna put this really well:
“In the Reformed tradition, they tie together the preached word and sacrament by the one term ‘Word.’ They see the Lord's Supper as the visible Word and the preached Word as the audible Word, which insinuates a comparable ‘holiness’ attached to both.”
Manoeuvres to sew up the veil are widespread in Protestant denominations, even those which don’t claim to be Reformed a la Calvinism.
“Magical view of ordination” really captures a lot. 😮💨💯
I am married to a priest. I so value the office. And yet the way different corners of the church prioritize the sense of calling of a man or this kind of magical thinking *over* the well-being of those entrusted to their care? Just leaves me thinking of Ezekiel 34 and the jostling rams muddying the waters.
Well said. Those misplaced priorities are ironically seen in John 20:15-17, in which many see Jesus‘s appointing Peter to authoritative shepherding office, but the passage alludes to and brings forward Ezekiel 34 to that commission.
Thank you. I was in the PCA for only a couple years but saw this problem more in a Reformed Baptist church. It’s like they don’t really believe in the idea of the priesthood of all believers or that I can have the same access to Jesus as the elders or even my husband.
They truly do not believe in the priesthood of all believers. There is no other conclusion to draw. As one historian puts it, that doctrine is one of the “lost doctrines of the reformation.”
Great stuff as always Anna (via Aaron),
Perhaps I'm currently in a non-denominational church because of how irritating I find denominational thinking; elder-only distribution of communion is a wild take! (I also think the PCA will have chronic challenges like this because of the rise of the EPC and the loss of the moderates from the PCA into that group.)
I feel like the "anti-Donatist" impulse is essential regarding the sacraments of course, but the problem is how that "spills over" into preaching, church discipline, etc., as if those remain pure and undefiled despite the hypocrisy of the minister as well.
But as you've highlighted, there are two sacraments, and preaching isn't one of them, nor is church discipline! And therefore, those other actions are HIGHLY influenced by the character of the minister.
Thanks for sharing your story!
Yes, John, again you have seen right through to the heart of the issue. They have "sacramentalized" themselves in pronouncing spiritual and sacramental union between the their preached word and their exercise of the keys of discipline. In the Reformed tradition, they tie together the preached word and sacrament by the one term "Word." They see the Lord's Supper as the visible Word and the preached Word as the audible Word, which insinuates a comparable "holiness" attached to both. So, yes, in my own instance, I unknowingly assaulted the pastor's own understanding of himself in giving respectful, brief input on his sermon, and the result of my "assault" on the sacredness of his preached word was what appeared to me as the jingling of his keys before me to remind me of my place. The whole ordeal was quite dehumanizing.
The connection drawn between baptism, eucharist, and preaching reminds me of an essay from John Webster I keep turning to. Webster was generally reluctant to use “sacramental” language, but he argues that the reading of Scripture—not preaching—is *the* audible word, holy and set apart. I particularly like his phrase “nontransferable agency.”
“In the words of the prophets and apostles, Jesus Christ declares himself. The crucial factor here is Jesus Christ’s personal, nontransferable agency—that is, the fact that he himself declares himself. At his glorification to the Father’s right hand, Jesus Christ does not resign his office of self-communication, handing it over to the texts of Scripture which are henceforth in and of themselves his voice in the world. Rather, in the texts of Holy Scripture, the living One himself speaks: Scripture is his prophet and his apostle. Holy Scripture is “holy” because it is sanctified: that is, it is set apart by God for the service of his self-announcement. Scripture is the elect, consecrated auxiliary through which the living One walks among the churches and makes known his presence. For this reason, Scripture is a transcendent moment in the life of the church.” (The Visible Attests the Visible)
To answer your question about other Protestant traditions:
My experience is that Lutherans, like Presbyterians, elevate the clergy in terms of administration of the sacraments, which are strictly safe-guarded and administered by Lutheran pastors. But even in this, the Lutheran pastor humbles himself to accept being served, alongside his own family, by the elders, which didn’t happen in Presbyterianism, where the minister served the elements to himself, apart from his family.
While baptisms are generally performed by a Lutheran pastor, Lutherans do teach that “in the absence of a pastor, any Christian may administer Holy Baptism.” If an emergency baptism is administered by a layperson, it “shall immediately be reported to the pastor for its recognition by the congregation.”
(The quotes are from a booklet called A Simple Explanation of Baptism, published by Concordia Publishing House.)
The understanding of the Keys of the Kingdom doctrine by the Westminster divines seems to fly in the face of Jesus’ own words in John 10:28 - 29: “… no man will snatch them out of my hand… no one will snatch them out of my Father’s hand.” “No man,” says Jesus, except He was apparently forgetting about the ordained officers of the fly-by-night, 50 years young, denomination of the PCA! (It’s not just the PCA that attempts to usurp the power of the Father and the Son to hold fast to souls. The OPC also teaches that submission to Church Authority via the 4th membership vow is “God’s provision” for the safekeeping of souls. Not sure how that squares with Jesus’ own words in John 10:28-29.)
Or how it squares with 1 Peter 2:25, Christ as the Shepherd and Overseer of our souls. I believe that 1 Peter 2:9 gives us further fulfillment of the three offices not in the "special office" of king-priests who mediate the prophetic Word and sacrament, but in "you," a chosen race, a royal (king) priesthood (priest), so that "you," may proclaim (prophet) the praises of the one who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. What is put forward in the PCA and OPC is a patriarchal model of church government, which depreciates the priesthood of all believers and can obscure the only Mediator between God and man, while at the same time denying the elders' own need for care from those in their congregations. This article lays out a good overview of the mistranslations that would lead to the OPC vow: https://centerbarnsteadcc.org/are-elders-supposed-to-rule-over-the-church-and-is-the-church-supposed-to-obey-them/
Anna, Thank you for sharing this article asking if elders are supposed to rule over the church. It's validating.
Sarah, it was encouraging to me that the article was written by a pastor, who is willing to take a sincere look at what the New Testament texts actually say, even though he might lose some of the prestige and power competing views might offer him.
Yes, Sarah, it is very interesting that proistimi is used in both 1 Timothy 3:5 and 5:17 and both times it is in the active voice, though it is often translated as if it is in the middle voice. See how Friberg distinguishes the middle and active of proistimi:
[Fri] προΐστημι 2aor. προέστην; pf. ptc. προεστώς; intransitively in the NT; (1) middle put oneself (responsibly) at the head, lead, direct, rule (1T 5.17); (2) active, of a protective leadership care for, help, give aid (1TH 5.12); (3) of responsible preoccupation with something devote oneself to, engage in, strive for (TI 3.8)
IN using the active voice, Paul is emphasizing protection, care, and help as he speaks under inspiration.
On the "keys of the kingdom", is not this simply the gospel of Jesus given to Peter and the other disciples to preach, that belief in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God, opens the kingdom, and continued unbelief/denial of him shuts the kingdom?
I come from a Baptist tradition, but have left a congregation over leadership. Some should never be granted the office of pastor/elder or even deacon, because they covet power and immediately begin to lord it over the flock once they are granted office, using it as a platform to advance their pet theories and address their past grievances.
On the other hand, I had one elderly pastor who, upon being called to the church, taught about the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of every believer, and about the greater punishment that an unfaithful or false teacher would incur. He told the congregation so many words to examine the Bible for ourselves, since we had the Spirit to teach us, and to challenge him when we thought he was in error - for both ours and his sake. I did that once or twice; and he responded well each time, even if he was not convinced by my reasons (I was much younger then). My questions never changed his benevolent and caring attitude toward me.