The roles of Peter and James, the Lord's brother

[jmcdzzz]

Be gentle. This is my first post. I am not being belligerent. I really want to know.

If Peter was the Pope and all the early bishops and presbyters looked to him, can you clarify Acts 15:19? Peter presents to the Jerusalem council that the Lord has revealed to him that the Gentiles do not need to be circumcised. James then pronounces that it is his judgment that they not “trouble the Gentiles who turn to God.” James was speaking for the council, but was his judgment more over-reaching than just Jerusalem? If so, why did Peter not just pronounce judgment, as it was revealed to him anyway? Speaking as Pope, where does James fit in?

 

[TarlsQtr]

Actually, Peter made the docrinal decision regarding this matter in verse 11. Notice he says, “We believe…”. He is speaking for the council.

James institutes the pastoral plan for mixed communities. Keep in mind two things. First, do not get too caught up in the phrase, “My judgment.” In this case, it means closer to “My opinion” than “My decree.” Also, James was the bishop of Jerusalem and this was the Jerusalem Council. It would make perfect sense that he played a major role in his own see, but it was Peter who gave the first definitive answer.

 

[jmcdzzz]

Thanks. That clears it up quite nicely.

 

[mercygate]

Actually, Peter made the docrinal decision regarding this matter in verse 11. Notice he says, “We believe…”. He is speaking for the council.

James institutes the pastoral plan for mixed communities. Keep in mind two things. First, do not get too caught up in the phrase, “My judgment.” In this case, it means closer to “My opinion” than “My decree.” Also, James was the bishop of Jerusalem and this was the Jerusalem Council. It would make perfect sense that he played a major role in his own see, but it was Peter who gave the first definitive answer.

Indeed, if you look at a time-line, Peter, according to Eusebius’ History of the Church (written in 325 A.D.) had already been in Rome for three years. That would mean that Peter had returned to Jerusalem, where he was a “pillar”, to participate in the council. In other words: the Church thought he was worth bringing back for the council.

At this embryonic phase of the Church and of the understanding of the Peter’s position, there had been no doctrinal, political, or disciplinary defections among Apostles. Peter at this point was NOT universal pontiff. He was Peter, upon whom the Lord promised to build his Church (not Churches, not a Church, but **his **Church, which he prayed would be One.

Had there been no later heresies among bishops, had there been no Caesaropapism, had Attila the Hun not threatened to sack Rome, it might have been unnecessary for the Papacy to develop as it has.

But those things DID happen, and rather than rant about how the papacy no longer resembles the primitive model, we should thank God that it developed as it did and attribute that development to the guiding hand of Providence, while remembering that the papacy (like the oak tree from the acorn, to use a well-worn simile) provides a focal point of apostolic confidence in a complex and often confusing Church and world.

 

[NotWorthy]

Take a closer look at James’ words:

James responded, "My brothers, listen to me.*** 14 ****** Symeon has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name***.*** 15 ****** The words of the prophets agree with this***, as is written:*** 16 ****** ‘After this I shall return and rebuild the fallen hut of David; from its ruins I shall rebuild it and raise it up again,****** 17 ****** so that the rest of humanity may seek out the Lord, even all the Gentiles on whom my name is invoked. Thus says the Lord who accomplishes these things,****** 18 ****** known from of old.’****** 19 ****** It is my judgment, therefore***, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God,

Note, James is basing his decision (therefore) on two things:
a) Symeon’s words
b) Scripture

A second thing to note is that Peter’s decisions all throughout Acts formed Doctrine:

• Baptism saves you
• Gentiles are a part of the Covenant
• Gentiles should not be saddled with the Mosaic Yoke.

James’ decision formed a **discipline **that was later revoked within Apostolic times.

 

[thistle]

Be gentle. This is my first post. I am not being belligerent. I really want to know.

If Peter was the Pope and all the early bishops and presbyters looked to him, can you clarify Acts 15:19? Peter presents to the Jerusalem council that the Lord has revealed to him that the Gentiles do not need to be circumcised. James then pronounces that it is his judgment that they not “trouble the Gentiles who turn to God.” James was speaking for the council, but was his judgment more over-reaching than just Jerusalem? If so, why did Peter not just pronounce judgment, as it was revealed to him anyway? Speaking as Pope, where does James fit in?

James was not the brother of Jesus in the biological sense as Mary had no other children.