Peter the Head of the Apostles?

[Gnosis]

If Peter was deemed the head of the Apostles by Jesus, then why is James acting as the leader at the Council of Jerusalem, and why does Peter seem to be on the wrong side of the circumcision argument in the epistles?

thanks.

 

[LilyM]

If Peter was deemed the head of the Apostles by Jesus, then why is James acting as the leader at the Council of Jerusalem, and why does Peter seem to be on the wrong side of the circumcision argument in the epistles?

thanks.

James isn’t acting as leader, he’s acting more in the role of chairman or speaker (if you think in terms of the US Congress, the Speaker of the House or senate isn’t as powerful as the President of the US, are they? And yet they ‘chair’ debates on lawmaking.)

And according to Paul, Peter’s fault was that while he SPOKE and TAUGHT that circumcision was unnecessary, his private behaviour belied this - he refused to eat with the uncircumcised.

Infallibility and Papal primacy doesn’t protect a Pope’s private behaviour - none of 'em have been sinless. It merely protects their official teaching.

 

[TOME]

Gnosis,
You bring up an interesting question because it helps point out that the Church of Jerusalem, all though she is the Mother Church, cannot be understood as containing the whole of the universal Church.

James was acting as head of the Church of Jerusalem thus was given the prominent role. Also, his status as a relative of Jesus further added to his status in the Church. However, James was only head of the Church of Jerusalem.

Peter’s was an apostle and one of the “Twelve” whose mission was not to remain at any one Church in particular but to spread the gospel message to all nations and, as we catholics know and accept, Peter was also commission as head of the Universal Church. This may be a poor understanding on my part, but when studying Acts it’s almost as if Peter doesn’t want to get caught up in the daily activities or situations that could hinder his role as an Apostle (consider how and why of the role of Stephen and the other deacons) and what could be left for others to do, Peter knowing and trusting in the Holy Spirit acting in the Church, allowed them to do it (if allowed is a good word to use).

I always found it interesting when studying Acts that at the Council of Jerusalem Peter did exercise a particular role of authority but not one that we may be totally aware of in that it was not an authority base on a legal status (de jure) but when Peter does speak here and other places he speaks from the authority of being guided by a special grace of the Holy Spirit which was authority enough for him and the rest of the Church. He never said to the affect he was “pope” and all must obey, he always said this is this is what the Holy Spirit revealed to him which seems to be more than enough authority for all.

I find it interesting, when studying Acts, James

 

[JimG]

HIstorically speaking, it was certainly propitious that Peter ended up in Rome and governing the Church from there. As the Eternal City, it was also the imperial capital.

If the Jerusalem church, of which James was bishop, had been pre-eminent, the Church could not have spread as quickly. First because the it was mainly a church of “Jewish” Christians, and retained some of the parochialism of the East generally. Secondly, after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, Jerusalem was no longer a preeminent religious center at all. Christianity was, in a sense, physically cut off from its Jewish roots at that point.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

If Peter was deemed the head of the Apostles by Jesus, then why is James acting as the leader at the Council of Jerusalem, and why does Peter seem to be on the wrong side of the circumcision argument in the epistles?

thanks.

After there had been “much disputing” (Acts 15:7) at the Council of Jerusalem, Peter said [literal translation, YLT]: “Men, brethren, ye know that from former days, GOD AMONG US DID MAKE CHOICE, THROUGH MY MOUTH, for the nations to hear the word of the good news, and to believe” (Acts 15:7).

The above is how Peter prefaced his decision regarding the dispute, by pointing out to all present that God chose Him to be the voice from which the nations would hear and believe. This is Petrine primacy straight from the mouth of Peter himself. James made no such claim, nor did the dispute end until Peter, the chief apostle, decided the matter, not by the cleverness of his argument, but by citing his singularly distinctive Divine authority among the other apostles. After Peter spoke, “all the multitude did keep silence.” (Acts 15:12).

So why did James formulate the response to those troubled by the Circumcisor Party?

I’m an officer in the Air Force. Often I am asked to formulate the wording in policy upon the direction of my General officer. This is not the “leg work” of the one who has universal primacy, but is more like the concurrence of a subordinate commander writing a letter to his specific unit from whence the dispute has come.

After all, elsewhere in Scripture, the “circumcision faction” is said to have come “from James” (Gal 2:12), right? It is prudent then that James would be the one to formulate what had been decided by Peter, the chief apostle who ended the dispute on the matter definitively.

As for Peter being “on the wrong side of the circumcision argument in the epistles,” you’ll have to cite the Scripture passage, because I don’t get what you are saying. He did fail to dine with gentiles when the “circumcision faction” from James was present. But I don’t see how this bad example had anything to do with an assertion that he agreed with the circumcision faction.