Peter's role at the Jerusalem council

  • Thread starter Thread starter bajolyn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bajolyn

Guest
At the Jerusalem council recorded in Acts 15, why was it James, and not Peter, who seemed to make the authoritative pronouncement about an issue that affected the entire church (or at least the Gentiles who were turning to Christ)? Would this not argue against the primacy of Peter, who was also present at the council?

I realize that this pronouncement was one that was sanctioned by the council in its entirety, and not solely made by James; however James does seem to play the leading role in this case.
 
Was it James that really made the final decision?

Or did James, as Bishop of Jerusalem - confirm his support of what he had just heard from Peter - the Rock- and from Paul?

What truly would have negated the concept of Peter’s role would have been a situation where James announced he disagreed with Peter, and rendered a conflicting judgement.

But that didn’t happen.
 
Also in Acts, Peter…

~headed the meeting that elected Matthias 1:13
~led the preaching on Pentecost 2:14
~received the first converts 2:41
~performed the first miracle after Pentecost 3:6
~inflicted the first punishment (Ananias and Saphira) 5:1
~excommunicated the first heretic (Simon Magus) 8:21
~received the revalation they were discussing at the Jerusalum council 10:44 (Actually 9-16, but acted upon 44-49)

Also–one might argue that James was speaking only through verse 15:18–The judgement could have been spoken by Peter. James’ statements were in support of Peter’s statements and then Peter made the final judgement in 19-21.
 
40.png
Lorarose:
Was it James that really made the final decision?

Or did James, as Bishop of Jerusalem - confirm his support of what he had just heard from Peter - the Rock- and from Paul?

What truly would have negated the concept of Peter’s role would have been a situation where James announced he disagreed with Peter, and rendered a conflicting judgement.

But that didn’t happen.
The concept of Peter’s role as primacy of the church is much deeper than the actions at the council, and has its bases rooted throughout scripture. Peter’s name occurs more often in the gospel than any other apostle. When listed in succession, it is always first, whcih indicates primacy. Most literally he is given a prime role through Jesus asking Peter to lead his sheep, and telling Peter that he would have the keys to the kingdom.

Not to mention the concept of his name being changed by Jesus, which throughout the Bible a name change indicates a speical conract being enacted between God and the person and henceforth the person has a new role in God’s plan (like Abram’s change to Abraham and Jacob’s change to Israel).

The convener of the council could be interpreted more as an administrative function, and James was the bishop of Jerusalem, which would make that function his responsibility as bishop of Jerusalem.
 
The Council of Jerusalem doesn’t show James in a position of primacy over Peter – instead, it reports the debate.

First Paul makes his case, and there is some discussion. Then Peter rises and reminds them that he has had a revelation about how the Gentiles are to be welcomed into the Church – and that he has acted on that revelation for some time.

Finally, James sums up, offering what today we would call “closure,” recommending a specific course of action based on the debate which preceeded his recommendation.
 
vern humphrey:
The Council of Jerusalem doesn’t show James in a position of primacy over Peter – instead, it reports the debate.

First Paul makes his case, and there is some discussion. Then Peter rises and reminds them that he has had a revelation about how the Gentiles are to be welcomed into the Church – and that he has acted on that revelation for some time.

Finally, James sums up, offering what today we would call “closure,” recommending a specific course of action based on the debate which preceeded his recommendation.
After the Lord’s Resurrection it is Jerusalem which becomes the centre of the Christian Church and it is not Saint Peter who heads the Church of Jerusalem but it is the brother of the Lord, Saint James. James leads the Church as the first bishop of Jerusalem. Peter is assigned, as both he and Paul tell us in the New Testament tell us, the work of a travelling Apostle.

Saint John Chrysostom who was writing in the 4th century, provides us with an understanding of the way the early Church understood the role of Saint Peter and the role of Saint James the Just at the Council of Jerusalem…

"Then all the multitude kept silence," etc. (v. 12.) There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. “And after that they had held their peace, James answered,” etc. (v. 13.) Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part."
 
Fr Ambrose:
After the Lord’s Resurrection it is Jerusalem which becomes the centre of the Christian Church and it is not Saint Peter who heads the Church of Jerusalem but it is the brother of the Lord, Saint James. James leads the Church as the first bishop of Jerusalem. Peter is assigned, as both he and Paul tell us in the New Testament tell us, the work of a travelling Apostle.
A travelling Apostle was NOT inferior to a local supervisor (or Bishop)!!
Fr Ambrose:
Saint John Chrysostom who was writing in the 4th century, provides us with an understanding of the way the early Church understood the role of Saint Peter and the role of Saint James the Just at the Council of Jerusalem…

“Then all the multitude kept silence,” etc. (v. 12.) There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. “And after that they had held their peace, James answered,” etc. (v. 13.) Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part."
Yes, that’s John Chrysostom’s take. But he wasn’t there. Nor did he personally know anyone who was there.

Luke, on the other hand, knew most of the participants personally and heard it from their lips.
 
Peter was the “chairman” at the Council of Jerusalem.

What is the role of the “Chairmen”? Is it to give speaches? No!

It is to recognise who will be allowed to speak and to set the agenda.

Peter allowed several to speak. And he (Peter) made his decision.

Can you imagine what a job it was to keep order with those Apostles? Peter did his job!
 
Fr Ambrose:
After the Lord’s Resurrection it is Jerusalem which becomes the centre of the Christian Church and it is not Saint Peter who heads the Church of Jerusalem but it is the brother of the Lord, Saint James. James leads the Church as the first bishop of Jerusalem. Peter is assigned, as both he and Paul tell us in the New Testament tell us, the work of a travelling Apostle.

Saint John Chrysostom who was writing in the 4th century, provides us with an understanding of the way the early Church understood the role of Saint Peter and the role of Saint James the Just at the Council of Jerusalem…

“Then all the multitude kept silence,” etc. (v. 12.) There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. “And after that they had held their peace, James answered,” etc. (v. 13.) Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part."
Father A,

Hasn’t this been hashed out to death on here? For my part I see that as doing nothing than supporting James’ position as Bishop of Jerusalem, for St Chrysostom also says (and I know you know it):
“He saith to him, ‘Feed My sheep.’ Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, and the head of the choir; for this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now, since his denial had been purged away, He entrusts him with the rule over the brethren; and the fervent love which thou hast shown throughout, and in which thou didst boast, show now; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldst lay down for Me, give for My sheep.” (Hom 88[87] in Joann 1, vol VIII, 477-9[525-6])
and:
“After that grave fall (for there is no sin equal to denial) after so great a sin, He brought him back to his former honor and entrusted him with the headship of the universal church, and, what is more than all, He showed us that he had a greater love for his master than any of the apostles, for saith he: ‘Peter lovest thou Me more than these?’” (Hom 5 de Poen 2, vol II, 308[311])
As an aside, I see that many Orthodox posters are quite fond of adding “the brother of the Lord” everytime they speak of James. I’ve always wondered in what sense you mean it, for I know that you believe in the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos (I hope). Is this just an Orthodox way of distinguishing him from James, brother of John (whereas a Catholic might say James the Less)?
 
40.png
bajolyn:
At the Jerusalem council recorded in Acts 15, why was it James, and not Peter, who seemed to make the authoritative pronouncement about an issue that affected the entire church (or at least the Gentiles who were turning to Christ)? Would this not argue against the primacy of Peter, who was also present at the council?

I realize that this pronouncement was one that was sanctioned by the council in its entirety, and not solely made by James; however James does seem to play the leading role in this case.
James wasn’t running the Council nor was he head of the Church, with Peter and Paul both sitting right there. James being supposed head doesn’t help Protestantism in any way.

The best explanation I’ve seen is that James had to make his speech, to publically disavow the Judaizers, of whom some thought James was their leader.
 
Is there some other reason the Orthodox Church views James in the leadership role? I cited several verses in Acts that point to Peter’s leadership–am I missing something concerning James?

If this is off topic, ignore me…😛 …I’ll do a search on it later when I have more time.
 
40.png
SPH1:
James wasn’t running the Council nor was he head of the Church, with Peter and Paul both sitting right there. James being supposed head doesn’t help Protestantism in any way.

The best explanation I’ve seen is that James had to make his speech, to publically disavow the Judaizers, of whom some thought James was their leader.
This is a very good thought. James was associated with the Judaizers and there is probably a good reason that the writer ensured that the real thoughts of James were recorded in the Acts of the Apostles.

Sometimes we get carried away with what we think is between the lines and forget to look at the actual context.

Maggie
 
40.png
SPH1:
The best explanation I’ve seen is that James had to make his speech, to publically disavow the Judaizers, of whom some thought James was their leader.
There are some compelling arguments in this thread. I think the issue of James being a recognized leader by the Judaizers is a real eye-opener. This makes perfect sense, as it would have been extremely important to attempt to bring the Judaizers into agreement by explicitly demonsrating that James wholeheartedly supported the pronouncement.

Thanks to everyone for some very good food for thought…

In Christ’s love,
bajolyn
 
40.png
bajolyn:
There are some compelling arguments in this thread. I think the issue of James being a recognized leader by the Judaizers is a real eye-opener. This makes perfect sense, as it would have been extremely important to attempt to bring the Judaizers into agreement by explicitly demonsrating that James wholeheartedly supported the pronouncement.

Thanks to everyone for some very good food for thought…

In Christ’s love,
bajolyn
 
40.png
bajolyn:
At the Jerusalem council recorded in Acts 15, why was it James, and not Peter, who seemed to make the authoritative pronouncement about an issue that affected the entire church (or at least the Gentiles who were turning to Christ)? Would this not argue against the primacy of Peter, who was also present at the council?

I realize that this pronouncement was one that was sanctioned by the council in its entirety, and not solely made by James; however James does seem to play the leading role in this case.
Bajolyn, thank you for your question, it is a question that really needs to be answered. The best way I’ve found to answer this is thru Scripture. Since you have a computer and Internet access, it’s really quite simple and very enlightening. Go to a bible web site, any site will do, but since you’re asking a question which challenges a Catholic Church teaching I advise you to NOT use a Catholic friendly site. One I find has a good search feature is www.bible.com. Go to search the bible and type in each of the ORIGINAL Apostles, I emphasize original because the leader would have been present when Jesus established His Church on earth. You can probably exclude Judas, unless of course you really feel He left Judas in charge, also leave out Paul, since he was in fact persecuting the Church in the early years. Print out all of the references to each of the original Apostles, note that Peter is mentioned more than all the rest combined. Of course that in itself doesn’t prove he was left in the leadership position, for that you need to read those verses where Peter is mentioned. If you read these with an open heart, you will have no doubts at all. Some things to consider, when
Peter is mentioned with other Apostles, who is named first? When Paul comes to Jerusalem whom does he seek for acceptance? When any pronouncement of teaching is final, who makes it (to include the above mentioned council) who speaks for the Church? Who does Jesus single out to “feed His Sheep”, “feed His lambs” and tend his flock? Who does Jesus single out when He says what you hold bound on earth will be held in heaven? Who is entrusted with the “keys”? I could go on and on, but there are over 100 instances. Please, read them. We all need to read them. Again, thanks for the question. May the peace and love of our Lord, Jesus the Christ, be with you,
Tom
 
The primary purpose of the Council of Jerusalem was to answer the debate that Paul and Barnabas had with men from Judea about whether or not circumcision was necessary for salvation (Acts 15:1-2).

It was Peter who made the pronouncement that, not only was circumcision not necessary, but also that salvation comes through the grace of Jesus.

Acts 15:6-11 “The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, ‘Bretheren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as He did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make a trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.’”

You can see this decision begin to develop with Peter all the way back to Acts 10:9-16, (where he received the vision of the “great sheet” descending from heaven) leading up to the council.
 
40.png
MarkPerz:
You can see this decision begin to develop with Peter all the way back to Acts 10:9-16, (where he received the vision of the “great sheet” descending from heaven) leading up to the council.
And you can see how the Pharisitical James the Just was impeled to accept Peter’s pronouncement, and speak for the most rigorous of the followers of the Mosaic Law.
 
Fr. Ambrose,

I’m glad you cited John Chrysostom. As a person who has studied John Chrysostom for the past year, I am glad someone uses his writings. Nonetheless, you failed you mention what St. Chrysostom’s explanation of the authority of Peter and James. He says:

“And if any should say, ‘How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?’ I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair, but of the world.” (Homily LXXXVIII on the Gospel of John, 1)

When St. Chrysostom says that James had the “chief rule,” he was simply speaking of the church of Jerusalem, not the universal church. Whenever St. Chrysostom speaks of “chair,” most likely, he is speaking of the chair of the local church. But as we can see, he does have an idea of the universal church. He speaks of Peter as the “teacher of the world.”
 
40.png
bajolyn:
At the Jerusalem council recorded in Acts 15, why was it James, and not Peter, who seemed to make the authoritative pronouncement about an issue that affected the entire church (or at least the Gentiles who were turning to Christ)? Would this not argue against the primacy of Peter, who was also present at the council?

I realize that this pronouncement was one that was sanctioned by the council in its entirety, and not solely made by James; however James does seem to play the leading role in this case.
It was Peter who got up and actually spoke first. It seems more like Peter made the decision, and the James expnded on what Peter said.
 
Fr Ambrose:
After the Lord’s Resurrection it is Jerusalem which becomes the centre of the Christian Church and it is not Saint Peter who heads the Church of Jerusalem but it is the brother of the Lord, Saint James. James leads the Church as the first bishop of Jerusalem. Peter is assigned, as both he and Paul tell us in the New Testament tell us, the work of a travelling Apostle.

Saint John Chrysostom who was writing in the 4th century, provides us with an understanding of the way the early Church understood the role of Saint Peter and the role of Saint James the Just at the Council of Jerusalem…

“Then all the multitude kept silence,” etc. (v. 12.) There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. “And after that they had held their peace, James answered,” etc. (v. 13.) Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part."
Father, you are plane nuts if you can pull that James had more authority in the early church than did Peter. It is clear from the scriptures, not only Matt. 16, but all of them. Look who the first 12 or 13 chapters of Acts is about. It is basicly the Acts of Peter. It is Peter that is doing all the speaking and it is Peter that is released from prison twice. It is impossible to draw from scripture that James had more authority than Peter. All the early fathers believed that Peter was the head of the apostles. Here are quotes by only John Chrysostom, since that is who you quoted.

Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church, the Friend of Christ, who received a revelation, not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, ‘Blessed art thou, &c.’ This very Peter and when I name Peter I name that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, First of the disciples, the First called, and the First who obeyed he was guilty …even denying the Lord." (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom)

Peter, the Leader of the choir of Apostles, the Mouth of the disciples, the Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the faith, the Foundation of the confession, the Fisherman of the universe. (Chrysostom, T. iii Hom).

Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church. (Chrys. In illud hoc Scitote)

(Peter), the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ …he who ran throughout the whole world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world. (De Eleemos, iii. 4; Hom. de decem mille tal. 3)

In those days Peter rose up in the midst of the disciples (Acts 1; 15), both as being ardent, and as intrusted by Christ with the flock …he first acts with authority in the matter, as having all put into his hands ; for to him Christ said, 'And thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren. (Chrysostom, Hom. iii Act Apost. tom. ix.)

He passed over his fall, and appointed him first of the Apostles; wherefore He said: ’ ‘Simon, Simon,’ etc. (in Ps. cxxix. 2). God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler over the whole world, that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And that what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying: ‘Simon, Simon, etc.’ (Chrys, Hom. quod frequenter conveniendum sit 5, cf. Hom 73 in Joan 5).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top