Is There a Chief Apostle?

[Dale]

The Roman Catholic Church says that Peter was the first Pope, that he was the sole Earthly leader of the early Church as soon as Christ ascended into Heaven. Late in life he became Bishop of Rome.

Does the New Testament support this? The Book of Acts is the best source on the fledgling Christian Church, along with the Epistles. Acts certainly gives Peter an important position but it does not make Peter the dictator or sole leader of the Church. It is amazing how many times Acts uses the phrase “Peter and John.”

“One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer—at three in the afternoon. Now a man crippled from birth was being carried to the temple gate called Beautiful, where he was put every day to beg from those going into the temple courts. When he saw Peter and John about to enter, he asked them for money. Peter looked straight at him, as did John. Then Peter said, ‘Look at us!’”
--Acts 3:1-5 NIV

I count this as three occurrences of “Peter and John.” Notice that Peter does not say “Look at me!” but “Look at us!”

“While the beggar held on to Peter and John, all the people were astonished and came running to them in the place called Solomon’s Colonnade.”
--Acts 3:11

Not only do Peter and John move about together and preach together, they heal together. The healed beggar believes that he was healed by the pair of Apostles, not by either of them alone.

“The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people.”
--Acts 4:1

“They seized Peter and John, and because it was evening, they put them in jail until the next day.”
--Acts 4:3

Peter and John are arrested together. Clearly the authorities regarded them as a unit.

“They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them.”
--Acts 4:7

The judges, like the guard, treat Peter and John as partners.

“When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.”
--Acts 4:13

“But Peter and John replied, ‘Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God.’”
--Acts 4:19

Instead of treating Peter as the spokesman, Acts says that they both replied together, issuing a joint statement.

“On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them.”
--Acts 4:23

“When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them.”
--Acts 8:14

In the Roman Catholic scheme of things, Pope Peter would have simply informed the Apostles that he had decided to go to Samaria. The Books of Acts has it the other way around. The Apostles talk it over and decide to send Peter and John.

“Then Peter and John placed their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.”
--Acts 8:17

Peter and John preach together, pray together, heal together, and confer the Holy Spirit together, insofar as mortals can direct the Holy Spirit.

“When they had testified and proclaimed the word of the Lord, Peter and John returned to Jerusalem, preaching the gospel in many Samaritan villages.”
--Acts 8:25


*

*

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Here is the argument:

Yes, Acts is a good place to start, but there is more to it than that. Acts portrays the historical realities after Jesus' resurrection up until Paul's experiences in Rome, but there are other parts of the Bible that talk about Peter.

Listen to what Jesus says about Peter in Matthew...

17And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For( flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Does this justify the entire Papacy? Well, that depends on questions like whether you believe in Apostolic succession and whether Peter's special privilege would be passed on to his successor. However, it is fairly apparent from the above passage that Jesus thought there was something special about Peter. It is very difficult to deny that fact.

 

[Dale]

The quotes above are thirteen occurrences of “Peter and John” in Acts.

There is also a mention of “Peter and the apostles.”
“Peter and the other apostles replied: ‘We must obey God rather than men.’”
--Acts 5:29

If Peter and John went about together, this is in accord with the practice and order given by Jesus:

“Calling the Twelve to him, he sent them out two by two and gave them authority over evil spirits.”
--Mark 6:7

Jesus did not want his disciples to be alone, but sent them out in twos for moral support. It could be that Peter and John were a pair at this stage of the ministry of Jesus, but the Gospels do not give us such details.


*

*

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

The quotes above are thirteen occurrences of “Peter and John” in Acts.

There is also a mention of “Peter and the apostles.”
“Peter and the other apostles replied: ‘We must obey God rather than men.’”
--Acts 5:29

If Peter and John went about together, this is in accord with the practice and order given by Jesus:

“Calling the Twelve to him, he sent them out two by two and gave them authority over evil spirits.”
--Mark 6:7

Jesus did not want his disciples to be alone, but sent them out in twos for moral support. It could be that Peter and John were a pair at this stage of the ministry of Jesus, but the Gospels do not give us such details.


*

*

Ok, but this doesn't change what I said above. I am not denying that Peter and John traveled together.

 

[Dale]

BeforeTheFoundation,

Yes, thanks for taking an interest. There are several useful answers to the point that you raise. You say that there is something special about Peter. Consider what the Gospel says about the Apostle John.

“His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, ‘Ask him which one he means.’
‘Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, ‘Lord, who is it?’’”
--John 13:22-25


“Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. [This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, ‘Lord, who is going to betray you.’]” . . .
“This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.”
--John 21:20 & 24


The Apostle John is called the Disciple Jesus Loved. Even Peter isn't given that distinction.



*


*

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Yes, and Peter is said to be the Apostle on which Jesus builds his Church. For the record, I am not a Catholic, I am just outlining the arguments.

I think it is important to note that yes, Jesus refers to John as his beloved disciple but Peter is the one that is specifically said to be the one on which Jesus builds his Church. It seems that this latter distinction is more significant.

 

[Dale]

"But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light."
--1 Peter 2:9


This is the verse most often cited as the source of the Protestant belief in the Priesthood of all Believers. It comes from Peter himself and it completely contradicts the Roman Catholic view of the Christian Church as a rigid top-down hierarchy.

Peter did play a role in founding the early church, so in that sense Christ did found the church on Peter, along with the other Apostles. I don't believe it was ever intended to make Peter the dictator of the Christian Church. In the Epistles of Peter, he makes no such claim, and these Epistles are exactly where we would expect to find it.


*

*

 

[St. Paul]

If you read the early church fathers, writings just after the New Testament they speak of "the twelve" and Peter and Paul seperately. It is clear from the earliest church fathers that Paul was held in higher esteem than Peter. That's not a knock on Peter but clearly Paul was in a class of his own.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

eh, like I said above, I am just outlining the argument that is made. I myself do not believe in the primacy of Peter. Perhaps someone that does would be better to answer it.

 

[Dale]

The Apostle James, the brother of John, was the first of the Apostles to die, the first to be martyred. This in itself is a singlular fact. When Christ was alive, the Pharisees, Sadducees, High Priest and Sanhedrin had no doubt that He was the center of the movement. They assumed that Christ’s movement would end when Christ was put to death. Acts 12: 1-2 says that King Herod had a number of Christians arrested and had James executed.

If Peter had clearly been the leader of the Christians in Jerusalem, we would have expected Herod to arrest Peter if he was going to arrest any Christians. Perhaps Peter was out of town at the time but if so, Acts does not mention it. Acts gives the impression that Herod decided that the followers of Jesus had to be suppressed but did not know of any single leader. It looks like the Apostles in Jerusalem had a collective leadership, without a sole leader or even a single spokesman.


*

*

 

[CreedIsChrist]

"But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light."
--1 Peter 2:9


This is the verse most often cited as the source of the Protestant belief in the Priesthood of all Believers. It comes from Peter himself and it completely contradicts the Roman Catholic view of the Christian Church as a rigid top-down hierarchy.

Peter did play a role in founding the early church, so in that sense Christ did found the church on Peter, along with the other Apostles. I don't believe it was ever intended to make Peter the dictator of the Christian Church. In the Epistles of Peter, he makes no such claim, and these Epistles are exactly where we would expect to find it.


*

*

Yes but a similar verse can be found in exodus, that talks about the priesthood of all believers. That in no way annulled the fact that there were levities and a priest hierarchy. I don't think you have a full understanding of that verse since you need to read the similar expression that is told in the OT

 

[Dale]

CreedIsChrist,

That's interesting. Could you cite that verse?



*

*

 

[CreedIsChrist]

CreedIsChrist,

That's interesting. Could you cite that verse?



*

*

and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel." - Exodus 19:5-6



yet we find in ezra

I have issued a decree that any of the people of Israel and their priests and the Levites in my kingdom who are willing to go to Jerusalem, may go with you. - Ezra 7:13


So we need to read it in the light of these verses in the OT. While we are a nation of believers, that does in no way annul the priest hierarchy. It didn't in OT times, and it doesn't today

 

[Dale]

BeforeTheFoundation:
Matthew 16:17-19:

17And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For( flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."


​

In Revelation 3:7 we find,
"These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David."

From this we learn that Christ still holds the Key of David, that this Key has not been passed on to Peter or anyone else. This verse seems to modify and reduce the significance of Matthew 16:17-19.


*

*

 

[Dale]

CreedIsChrist in post #13:
"So we need to read it in the light of these verses in the OT. While we are a nation of believers, that does in no way annul the priest hierarchy. It didn't in OT times, and it doesn't today."


The Old Testament "priest hierarchy" was not as organized or as bureaucratic as the Roman Catholic Church. The Levites cast lots to see who would go into the Holy of Holies, for instance. This casting of lots means that the intention is that the Levitical priests were basically equal, not hierarchical.


The Levitical priesthood did not have the power to excommunicate Jews for heresy. This is certainly one sign that the Levites were not as authoritarian, in spiritual matters, as the RCC became.

It is not clear that Christ intended to establish a hierarchy of pastors like the RCC.

*

*

 

[Dale]

<< In Revelation 3:7 we find,
"These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David."

From this we learn that Christ still holds the Key of David, that this Key has not been passed on to Peter or anyone else. This verse seems to modify and reduce the significance of Matthew 16:17-19. >>


The timing of the Book of Revelation may be significant as well. Scholars say that Peter died in Rome in either 64 or 65 AD. The Apocalypse of St. John the Divine cannot be dated exactly but was apparently written during the reign of Domitian, which is 81 to 96 AD. Revelation was written considerably after the death of Peter.

It is possible that the key or keys given to Peter in Matthew 16:17-19 were inherited by no other mortal, and no institution. It is possible that the intent of scripture is that the Key given to Peter simply reverted to Christ on the death of Peter. This seems to me to be far more plausible than assuming that the Keys to the Kingdom passed to the Bishop or Rome, or the next Bishop of Rome.

*

*

 

[Dale]

What the Apostle Paul has to say about the Apostles in Jerusalem provides further insight.

&#8220;James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me.&#8221;
--Galatians 2:9 NIV

Paul treats Peter, James and John as equals, and does not list Peter first, or even as their spokesman.

From Galatians 2:
Paul Opposes Peter

11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
15"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.
17"If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. 19For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"[d]

Paul is certainly not being deferential toward Peter in this passage. It would be shocking for Paul to speak about Peter in this way had Peter been dictator of the church as Roman Catholic doctrine insists. It would be shocking enough for Paul to speak directly to Peter this way in private. Instead, the whole scene happens before other Christians. Paul is not ready to apologize for his behavior by the time he writes Galatians. Instead, he says &#8220;he [Peter] was clearly in the wrong.&#8221;


*

*

 

[aidan55]

Peter wouldn't have been dictator of the Church as the Pope is not a dictator. He would be the leader (servant of servants) which denotes no such title. Paul was rebuking Peter not on matters of doctrinal supremacy, but on actions that did not follow that doctrine. Obviously Peter was the leader as indicated by Christ's words and Peter's actions at the Council of Jeruselem in Acts 15:6-11. Paul had a special place of course as the apostle to the Gentiles, but that doesn't take away from Peter's leadership. Paul rebuked Peter publicly about not following the doctrine laid down BY Peter at the Council. Notice also that the dream was recieved by Peter that opened up the way for Paul to travel to the Gentiles to preach.
I am not Catholic, but affirming the supremacy of Peter from among the apostles is not a hard stretch for anyone.
About the Revelation "Keys of David" I would say that the keys are quite different than those handed to Peter. The Keys of David are a sign of the doors of Heaven opened by Christ that weren't open to that point and He has the authority to close them at Judgement Day. This recognizes the Keys of David as those that establish and complete the work of fulfilling all that was revealed to us in the Davidic Covenant. Christ would not contradict himself on this point when He tells Peter that he has the key of the Kingdom of Heaven, for as the leader, he introduces God's Word so that others may enter and can also administer Church Discipline on a large scale and assert Church doctrines and defend them with his ability to "bind". They seem like different keys, and it doesn't seem right to say that Christ would take those same keys away from His Church as that would be quite counter productive to our chief end which is to "Baptize the nations..."

 

[daydreamergurl15]

This question reminds me of the disciples arguing among themselves whom is the greatest...

Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest. And He said to them, &#8220;The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called &#8216;benefactors.&#8217; But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves. For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves. &#8220;But you are those who have continued with Me in My trials. And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me, that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.&#8221;
Luke 22:24-30
By the way, if anyone is wondering, these "disciples" were the 12 apostles, because this verse is in the context of Christ instituting the Lord's supper.

But I also am reminded of Paul's writing here:
2 Corinthians 11:5-6
For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles. Even though I am untrained in speech, yet I am not in knowledge. But we have been thoroughly manifested among you in all things.

There might have been more popular apostles, but non were chief.

 

[MrPolo]

Dr. John MacArthur, who is quite adverse to Catholicism, argues from Scripture that Peter was the chief of the apostles. He of course does not believe in the Papacy whatsoever. Link to his article here.

Short excerpt from long article:

Now as you look at the list there are some fascinating things to learn just from the list itself. Let me tell you why. It begins this way. The first, Simon who is called Peter, there are four lists of these disciples in the New Testament. One here in Matthew 10, one in Mark chapter 3, one in Luke chapter 6 and one in Acts chapter 1.. .Matthew 10, Mark 3, Luke 6, and Acts 1. Now listen, there are some marvelous similarities. In all four lists Peter is always first. And when Judas is mentioned he is always.. .what?. . .last. That's interesting. Peter is always first. Why was he first? Was he the first one chosen? No. John 1 makes it clear that he was not the first one chosen. But look at the word there, it says the first Simon who is called Peter. You have to understand the word there.. .protos. That's an interesting word. In this context it means the foremost in rank.

You say, - Now wait a minute, I thought the twelve Apostles all had equal twelve thrones in the Kingdom. I thought the twelve Apostles were all equal in authority, equal in power, all told to preach, all told to heal, all told to cast out demons. You're right. They'll all sit and judge the tribes of Israel. That's right. Well how come Peter is the foremost? Aren't they all equal?

People ask us all the time when they ask about the eldership of the church. They say, - Well, if you have elders, don't you just have one pastor and he calls all the shots? How can you have all elders? I mean, are they all equal? Do they all preach and teach? And they're all equal and so forth, in every area? Yes.. .in terms of office. Yes.. .in terms of authority. Yes.. .in terms of essence. But no.. in terms of function. Peter was foremost.. protos.

Let me give you another place where that word is used. How about this? "This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance that Christ came into the world to save sinners, I Timothy 1:15, "of whom I am.. .what?.. .chief." That's the same word. Chief.. .you could translate it chief. The chief of the twelve was Peter. They had to have a leader, and he was their leader.​