Did James have priority over Peter?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlNg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AlNg

Guest
We read in Gal 2:9
2: 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me.

Now since Peter, being the first Pope of the Catholic Church, is the Vicar of Christ and has universal supremacy over all the apostles and disciples, why is he mentioned second here after James? Wouldn’t protocol demand that the Vicar of Christ and the Supreme Pontiff be mentioned first and not second?
 
Last edited:
Look at verse 8! Paul mentions Peter before himself. And, this was Jerusalem - the See of James. Peter was universal head, while James was Bishop of Jerusalem. Acts 15 confirms this. This is not even the exception that proves the rule. It proves that James was Bishop of Jerusalem - which was common knowledge among the Christians there.
 
Last edited:
Matthew 16:19b . . . whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
“Binding” and “loosing” were rabbinical terms, meaning to “forbid” and “permit” with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to “condemn” or “acquit.” Thus, St. Peter was given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and practice. Bishops also these powers (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23), but Peter was the only apostle who received them singularly, by name (making him preeminent).
Peter was regarded by Jesus as the chief shepherd after Himself (Jn 10:11; 21:15-17): over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; Eph 4:11; 1 Pet 5:2).
Jesus uniquely prayed for him, that his “faith may not fail”, and exhorted him to “strengthen” his “brethren” (Lk 22:32), and informed him that he had received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).
Jesus uniquely associated Himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute-money (Mt 17:24-27), and taught from Peter’s boat. A miraculous catch of fish followed (Lk 5:1-11).
2. Profound Significance of St. Peter’s Name
Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even called him the “first” (10:2). He is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else. In one (only?) example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he (“Cephas”) is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context (e.g., 1:18-19; 2:7-8). He alone among the apostles received a new name, Rock (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18).
Both Paul (1 Cor 15:4-8) and the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Lk 24:34) distinguished the Lord’s post-Resurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles. Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28, 32; Acts 2:37; 5:29; 1 Cor 9:5), and his name is always the first listed of the “inner circle” of the disciples (Peter, James and John – Mt 17:1; 26:37, 40; Mk 5:37; 14:37).
He’s mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next (48).

continued on next post
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
Now since Peter, being the first Pope of the Catholic Church, is the Vicar of Christ and has universal supremacy over all the apostles and disciples, why is he mentioned second here after James? Wouldn’t protocol demand that the Vicar of Christ and the Supreme Pontiff be mentioned first and not second?
Click to expand...
Methinks you put way too much emphasis on the order in which Paul lists these three “pillars.” I suggest you read nothing into it, since – unless you’ve conversed with Paul recently – you don’t have the first clue whether he meant to connote something about priority here.

More importantly, Paul didn’t recognize Peter as having “universal supremacy over all the apostles and disciples.” The dispute between Paul and Peter over table fellowship with the uncircumcised in Antioch described elsewhere in Galatians proves this.
 
Last edited:
PJM said:
“Binding” and “loosing” were rabbinical terms, meaning to “forbid” and “permit” with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to “condemn” or “acquit.” Thus, St. Peter was given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and practice. Bishops also these powers (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23), but Peter was the only apostle who received them singularly, by name (making him preeminent).
Click to expand...
How does it follow from the mention of Peter by name (vs. the grant of the same power to the other apostles without listing them by name) that Peter was made “preeminent” among them?

I’m not saying that he was or that he wasn’t preeiminent. I’m saying that inferring his preeminence from the mere fact that he was mentioned by name and the others were not is a logical fallacy.
 
The primacy of Peter is recognized by some evangelicals, albeit in a limited form. In the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, published by InterVarsity Press (link below), the entry for the Farewell Discourse includes this:

“But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren” (Luke 22:32).
Peter, despite his failure, is implicitly singled out for special leadership. … Not so much transfer of authority as mission … Peter is to care for the disciples much as Jesus has. This anticipates Peter’s role in Acts, where he will be the leader of the early church, but not the sole possessor of Jesus’ authority.

Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, p. 231a. The author of this entry is R. Wade Paschal of Asbury Theological Seminary.

https://www.ivpress.com/Search?q=dictionary+of+jesus+and+the+gospels
 
Last edited:
Galatians can be twisted (as Peter warns of Paul’s writings).

Paul was trying to convey certain things, while not concerned with others.

When he explains his conversion, he emphisizes that he did not confer with flesh and blood. Which is true, but he also was told by Jesus to go to Damascus and meet Ananias where he would be told what to do (and healed, given the Holy Spirit through Laying on Hands, and Baptized). And he also stayed with the disciples for some time.

Paul was distinguishing how he learned of the Lord Jesus, and His Gospel. So he did not learn it from the Church, but by Jesus Himself. This was all to say that he was a genuine Apostle, and that being an Apostle, though ultimately comes with glory, is not something to be desired and pleasant.

So off he went to attest to what was revealed to him. But who was he compelled to go see?

Galatians 1

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. 20 (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!)

This is significant to your question. Because why does Paul specifically visit Peter in Jerusalem, and stay with him for 15 days, and only mention James as kindof a side note of also seeing him?

Then after 14 years, he retutns by way of revelation to lay before the hierarchy of Apostles (privately) the message he was preaching. And why?

He said, “lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.”

So he was seeking Confirmation first, and then support to move with the Church.

Paul was being humble and seeking God’s Confirmation through the hierarchy. He was not seeking flesh and blood advice, but divine will.

Paul was very wise to know how to seek God in the Church, yet distinguish weak behavior in Church members.

And even though Paul recognized that Jesus had a mission to preach to the Gentiles, it was still through Peter whom Jesus provided the Gentiles to first hear and accept the Gospel, and be granted the Holy Spirit. And Peter silenced the Jeruslem council with this reason, and declared that the Gentiles should be received.

Peter did not need the Apostles to Lay Hands on him and give him his mission, but Paul was commissioned through the Church:

Acts 13
While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off…So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went… and they had John to assist them.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
Wouldn’t protocol demand that the Vicar of Christ and the Supreme Pontiff be mentioned first and not second?
Click to expand...
I think that, given that the formal structures of the Church hadn’t yet been formally defined, it’s kinda unrealistic to think that there should have been this kind of “protocol” at that point. You’d be just as well off asking “did James kiss Peter’s ring?” or “did Peter wear his papal tiara to the meeting?”. Both of these would be as anachronistic as asking “what about papal protocol?”
 
I think there was the fundamental respect given to Peter, from Paul, as i tried to express in my previous post.

The development of language and doctrine wasnt the same, but the basic rule was there, and Paul took advantage of that.
 
I don’t think the Popemobile had yet been instituted. As to Peter…

Jesus changed Simon bar-Jonah’s name.
He does that for a reason.
Peter is named 195 times in the NT. The closest is John “whom Jesus
loved” at just 29 times. All of the rest even less. Peter is always
named first, Judas last. Here is a partial list of unique aspects of Peter:
Jesus gave Peter the keys to the gates of Heaven.
Jesus declared Peter to the the rock.
Jesus made Peter shepherd (Feed my sheep).
Jesus told Peter only to strengthen his brothers
Jesus paid the Temple tax only for Himself and Peter.
Jesus preached from Peter’s boat.
Jesus told Peter to “Follow me” at the sea of Tiberias.
Jesus called only Peter to Him across the water.
Jesus predicted Peter’s three-fold denial.
Jesus predicted Peter’s repentance and three-fold affirmation.
Jesus prophesied only Peter’s death.
Jesus taught Peter forgiveness 70 times 7 times.
Jesus spoke only to Peter at Gethsemane.
Peter is always listed first.
Peter alone received the revelation of Jesus as Messiah.
Peter alone spoke at the Transfiguration.
Peter pointed out the withered fig tree.
Peter entered the empty tomb first - John deferring to him.
Peter decided the manner of replacing Judas.
Peter spoke for the eleven at the Pentecost.
Peter was released from prison by the Angel.
Peter spoke for the eleven before the Council.
Peter held sin bound to Ananias and Saphira.
Peter’s shadow healed.
Peter declared the sin of Simony.
Peter explained the salvation of the Gentiles to the Church at Jerusalem.
The Angel told Cornelius to call for Peter.
The Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles as Peter preached to them.
At the empty tomb, the Angel said, “Go tell His disciples, and Peter.”
Mary Magdalene ran to tell Peter and the beloved disciple.
The vision of all foods being clean was given only to Peter.
Peter’s words silence the first council in Jerusalem.
Peter alone received the revelation of the end of the world (elements melting).
Peter alone received the revelation of Christ’s descent to hell/sheol.
Paul went to Peter to affirm that his Gospel was not in vain.
And on and on and on.

So, one can deny that Peter was primary, but it takes an amazing
disregard of scripture and history to do so.

As mentioned, the Archdiocese of Jerusalem is known as the ‘See of James’ to this day. Christ, knowing everything, would not have made James prime since he knew that Herod was going to kill him. Doesn’t that make sense?
 
http://www.defendingthebride.com/ch/pa/pquestions.html#four

:

Actually Peter is already mentioned twice in that sentence before being listed for the third time in the phrase “James and Kephas and John.” And on the contrary, this final listing actually promotes the headship of Peter, or Kephas, over James and John. Most of the New Testament was written in Greek. It is custom to list the most important idea between the two mentionings of another idea. It is a also custom to place the most important person between two other persons of similar status.

For example, consider how the medals are awarded in the Olympics which also come from the Greeks. The gold medalist stands between the silver and bronze medalists. A book by Peter Ellis titled The Genius of John, shows over twenty different sequences where the most important idea is in the middle of another idea that is repeated both before and after this central and most important idea. [ I am not endorsing every conclusion listed in this book. I am just using it because it points out an obvious method in which the Book of John was composed.] So, this is why Peter, a.k.a. Kephas, is placed in the center with the Sons of Thunder on either side. (Cf. Mark 3:17)

John
 
Considering that Paul went to Peter primarily to get validation for his ministry despite being taught by Christ Himself, Paul at the very least acknowledged Peter’s preeminence over him, as well as that of James.

And the incident of Paul and Peter at Antioch kinda proves the exact opposite: Peter’s cowardice influenced the rest of the Church to act in the manner they did.
 
RedFan said:
Paul didn’t recognize Peter as having “universal supremacy over all the apostles and disciples
Click to expand...
Gorgias said:
I think that, given that the formal structures of the Church hadn’t yet been formally defined, it’s kinda unrealistic to think that there should have been this kind of “protocol” at that point.
Click to expand...
Do you say that the doctrine on the universal supremacy of the Pope was not known in the early Catholic Church ? But essential teachings never change and if universal supremacy of the Pope was not a teaching of the early Church, should that be the unchanged teaching today?
 
Last edited:
RedFan said:
How does it follow from the mention of Peter by name (vs. the grant of the same power to the other apostles without listing them by name) that Peter was made “preeminent” among them?

I’m not saying that he was or that he wasn’t preeiminent. I’m saying that inferring his preeminence from the mere fact that he was mentioned by name and the others were not is a logical fallacy
Click to expand...
No ACTUALLY not:

It is notable that nowhere in the Bible is there any authority dispute after Jesus CHOOSE Peter and handed HIM, directly, precisely and exclusively “the Keys” to "the Kingdo

Among the 50 which SPACE prohibits me posting is this CLEAR Evidence:

[John 21:13] And Jesus cometh and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish in like manner. [14] This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to his disciples, after he was risen from the dead.[15] When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest YOU me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith TO HIM Feed my lambs.

[16] He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest YOU me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith TO HIM: Feed my lambs. [17] He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest YOU me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said TO HIM Feed my sheep.

Reading of the list of 50 makes this indisputably clear

God Bless you
Patrick
 
Last edited:
No Church father considered James as the preeminent Apostle. If there were a preeminent Apostle for the early Church Fathers, it was Peter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top