Is There a Chief Apostle?

[packermann]

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


*

*

John was a teenager when called by Christ. It would make sense that the Prince of the Apostles would take the young Apostle under his wing.

If anything, this actually confirms the importance of Peter. It would make sense that the the young John would tag along the apostle he most admired and respected. This shows when they went to the empty tomb. John raced past Peter to get to the tomb. But John waited until Peter came, and John let Peter go in first.

And notice that is always Peter and John. It was never John and Peter. It is highly unlikely that John was a leader of the apostles. Would the other apostles take orders from someone who was half their age? Did I mention that John was a teenager?

 

[Dale]

Here is one verse cited by the Eastern Orthodox as proof that Christ gave authority to all twelve of the Apostles.

"The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord. Again Jesus said, 'Peace be with you! As the Father sent me, I am sending you.' And with that he breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.'"
--John 20: 20-21


*

*

 

[Dale]

Aidan55 in post #88:
"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."

Popes have not acted as servants of the church.

"Paul was rebuking Peter not on matters of doctrinal supremacy, but on actions that did not follow that doctrine."

Could Paul have spoken out as he did, and remained an Apostle, if Peter was the undisputed Supreme Leader of the church?

"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."

It looks to me like Peter summed up the sense of the Council. It is not clear that Peter listened to the arguments and then made the decision, as you seem to be thinking.


*

*

 

[Dale]

Packerman in post #21:
"It would make sense that the the young John would tag along the apostle he most admired and respected."

Yet John's family was well off, which probably means that he was more educated than Peter.

"Without delay he [Christ] called them [James and John], and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him."
--Mark 1:20

John's family was affluent enough to have more than one employee. There is no sign in the Gospels that Peter had any employees. Wealth tends to generate respect.

Packerman:
"This shows when they went to the empty tomb. John raced past Peter to get to the tomb. But John waited until Peter came, and John let Peter go in first."

There is another interpretation of this. Jewish law forbids contact with corpses and requires a period of purification before entering the Temple after contact with one. Scholars say that John was more educated in the Jewish law and acted accordingly. Peter, in contrast, was oblivious, perhaps because he was less educated in such matters.

"It is highly unlikely that John was a leader of the apostles. Would the other apostles take orders from someone who was half their age? Did I mention that John was a teenager?"

I don't know any evidence that John was a teenager, although he may well have been younger than the other Apostles. I don't know any scholar who thinks John was a teenager. John 19:27 indicates that John owned a house.

*

*

 

[Dale]

Why would Peter respect John?

When Christ was arrested, the disciples fled, except for Peter, who hung around long enough to deny Christ. The only exception was John, the only Apostle and only male disciple to witness the Crucifixion. On the cross, Christ entrusted John with the care of his mother, Mary.

"Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, 'Dear woman, here is your son,' and to the disciple, 'Here is your mother.' From that time on, this disciple took her into his home."
--John 19:25-7

At the empty tomb: "He [John] saw and believed."--John 20:8
Although Peter is there, we are not told that Peter realized that Jesus had risen.
It looks like John is the first Apostle to see and accept that Christ had risen from the dead.

*

*

 

[MrPolo]

Here is one verse cited by the Eastern Orthodox as proof that Christ gave authority to all twelve of the Apostles.

No good Catholic, nor any official document of the Catholic Church, denies that Christ gave authority to all the Apostles....FYI.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

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.​

1 Timothy 1:15 does not show that there is a chief apostle. It shows that Paul consider himself a chief of sinners.

If you read it in it's context 1 Timothy 1:12-15 says this:
And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry, although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. And the grace of our Lord was exceedingly abundant, with faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever.

Within that context, it shows that because of what he once did to the church, he considers himself the greatest of all sinners. Nut he does not say that there is such a thing as chief when it comes to those whom are under mercy and grace that is attainable through Christ's Jesus.

 

[packermann]

Packerman in post #21:

John's family was affluent enough to have more than one employee. There is no sign in the Gospels that Peter had any employees. Wealth tends to generate respect.

Maybe in the spirit of this world wealth gains respect, but not in the kingdom of God.


12 And he said to him also that had bidden him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, nor thy kinsmen, nor rich neighbors; lest haply they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made thee.
13 But when thou makest a feast, bid the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind:

Luke 14

24 But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.

Luke 6

25 It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Mark 10


I doubt Jesus and the other disciples would show more respect to John simply because of John’s wealth. This goes against everything that Jesus taught.

There is another interpretation of this. Jewish law forbids contact with corpses and requires a period of purification before entering the Temple after contact with one. Scholars say that John was more educated in the Jewish law and acted accordingly. Peter, in contrast, was oblivious, perhaps because he was less educated in such matters.

Then why did John not stop Peter from entering?

And more importantly, John DID go in to look after Peter went in. So why would it be against Jewish custom for John to go in before Peter went in, but it was all right for John to go in after Peter went in?

I don't know any evidence that John was a teenager, although he may well have been younger than the other Apostles. I don't know any scholar who thinks John was a teenager. John 19:27 indicates that John owned a house.

Most scholars put the dates of the Gospel of John and the Revelation of John into the tail end of the first century and the beginning of the the secoond century. It is hard to accept that John was still around by then unless he was very young when he was called by Jesus.

Also, John rested his head on Jesus' chest when they the Last Supper. This is easier to explain if John was still under age, otherwise why would an adult man rest his head on the chest of another adult man? Unless you want to argue that they were gay.

Another piece of evidence is Jesus on the Cross saying to John that Mary is John’s mother now, meaning that John should care of her as he would take care of his mother. It would make sense that Jesus would give this responsibility to the youngest apostle, the one who would most probably live the longest to care for Mary.

Also, Dan Brown argued in The DaVinci Code that Jesus was just a man and it was Mary Magdalen was the one who was divine. One of the evidence that he gave of this was DaVinci’s painting of the Last Supper.

In this picture, it shows what appears to be a woman at the Last Supper right next to Jesus. From this, Brown argued that the Church suppressed this knowledge that Mary Magalene was at the Lord’s Supper, but that Leonardo showed in this painting that he was aware of this tradition.

The Christian rebuttal to this is that medieval artists, especially Leonardo, would depict teenagers and children as having feminine attributes. The person next to Jesus is not Mary Magdalene, but John as a teenager. This shows that it is part of the Christian tradition that John was a teenager at the Last Supper. Unless you agree with Dan Brown, that this person was Mary Magalene.

 

[Dale]

Dale, quoted:

There is another interpretation of this. Jewish law forbids contact with corpses and requires a period of purification before entering the Temple after contact with one. Scholars say that John was more educated in the Jewish law and acted accordingly. Peter, in contrast, was oblivious, perhaps because he was less educated in such matters.
​

Packerman in post #28:
<< Then why did John not stop Peter from entering?

And more importantly, John DID go in to look after Peter went in. So why would it be against Jewish custom for John to go in before Peter went in, but it was all right for John to go in after Peter went in? >>


Maybe John followed Peter's bad example, or maybe they both decided there was something they had to see for themselves, even if they needed purification later.

Here is part of what the Old Testament says about contact with a corpse.

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Command the Israelites to send away from the camp anyone who has an infectious skin disease [a] or a discharge of any kind, or who is ceremonially unclean because of a dead body.
--Numbers 5:1-2 NIV

From Numbers 6, on the Nazirite:

6 Throughout the period of his separation to the LORD he must not go near a dead body. 7 Even if his own father or mother or brother or sister dies, he must not make himself ceremonially unclean on account of them, because the symbol of his separation to God is on his head. 8 Throughout the period of his separation he is consecrated to the LORD.
9 " 'If someone dies suddenly in his presence, thus defiling the hair he has dedicated, he must shave his head on the day of his cleansing&#8212;the seventh day. 10 Then on the eighth day he must bring two doves or two young pigeons to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 11 The priest is to offer one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering to make atonement for him because he sinned by being in the presence of the dead body. That same day he is to consecrate his head.
Numbers 6: 5-11

6 But some of them could not celebrate the Passover on that day because they were ceremonially unclean on account of a dead body.
--Numbers 9:6

11 "Whoever touches the dead body of anyone will be unclean for seven days. 12 He must purify himself with the water on the third day and on the seventh day; then he will be clean. But if he does not purify himself on the third and seventh days, he will not be clean. 13 Whoever touches the dead body of anyone and fails to purify himself defiles the LORD's tabernacle. That person must be cut off from Israel. Because the water of cleansing has not been sprinkled on him, he is unclean; his uncleanness remains on him.
--Numbers 19:11-13

*

*

 

[Dale]

Packerman in post #28:
"Maybe in the spirit of this world wealth gains respect, but not in the kingdom of God."

"I doubt Jesus and the other disciples would show more respect to John simply because of John&#8217;s wealth. This goes against everything that Jesus taught."

I never suggested that Jesus himself would show respect for that reason, but the other disciples might. Wealth usually means more education, and that is of value.

Packerman:
"Most scholars put the dates of the Gospel of John and the Revelation of John into the tail end of the first century and the beginning of the the secoond century. It is hard to accept that John was still around by then unless he was very young when he was called by Jesus."

On the authorship of Revelation, Harper's Bible Dictionary says:
"Though the possibility that he was an Apostle cannot be ruled out, he never claimed Apostolic authority or acquaintance with the historic Jesus. His references to the Apostles have a 'retrospective tinge' (1:3,19:10,22:7,9)."
Also,
"Subject matter and linguistic considerations make it reasonablly clear that the author of the Fourth Gospel was not the author of Revelation."

On the Gospel of John:
"The authorship of the Fourth Gospel has long been a matter of discussion."
"The appendix (Chapter 21) in endorsing the Gospel does not claim that John the Apostle was its author."
"External evidence points to John's early martyrdom, before A.D. 70 . . ."


We cannot jump to the conclusion that the Apostle John was a teenager at the time of the earthly ministry of Christ.


*

*

 

[MamaZ]

Posts are being lost I believe.. There is one chief Apostle .. That is Christ Himself. As the Father sent Him so He sent the 12. He Was the greatest Apostle that ever lived. He is the head.

 

[jgarden]

GALATIANS 2:7 to 16

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

**********************************************************
In Galatians 2, Paul clearly states that under the terms of the Jerusalem Council (Acts), he and Peter have been given 2 separate mandates.

Paul writes that the "gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter" making him the Apostles to the Jews, while "the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me" making Paul the Apostles to the Gentiles.

At Antioch, Paul severely criticizes Peter and other Jewish Christians for refusing to eat with the Gentile Christians - "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all ....."

Peter is portrayed as a rather "weak" character, normally he would eat with Gentile Christians, but he was intimidated by the representatives sent by James, head of the Jerusalem Church. - " For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision."

Given Galatians 2, the decision of the Roman Catholic Church to choose Peter, and not Paul, is a strange one, given that Paul preached "the gospel of the uncircumcision" which did not require Gentile males to become Jews (circumcized) before they became Christians.

Opposition to circumcision, mutilation of the flesh, was based in ancient Greek culture which glorified the human body and strongly influenced Gentile beliefs during that time.

With the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the dispersal of the Jews, Paul had provided the necessary foundation whereby Christianity was able to shift from a Jewish based to a Gentile based religion, and its center of power shifted from Jerusalem to Rome.

In addition to his role as the Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul was also early Christianity's greatest missionary, theologian and most prolific writer. Paul and Moses are the 2 authors who have made the greatest contributions in terms of books in the the Bible.
***************************************************************************************************
Peter
Romans Paul 58 AD - Paul&#8217;s Explanation of the Gospel.
1 Corinthians Paul 56 AD - Paul&#8217;s Response to Problems of Division & Immorality.
2 Corinthians Paul 57 AD - Paul&#8217;s Follow-up letter to the Corinthian Church.
Galatians Paul 49/55 AD - Paul&#8217;s Response to Legalism in the Church.
Ephesians Paul 61 AD - Paul&#8217;s Teaching on the Church and Unity Among Christians.
Philippians Paul 61 AD - Paul&#8217;s Letter of Encouragement to the Philippian church.
Colossians Paul 61 AD - Paul Writes About the Supremacy of Christ.
1 Thessalonians Paul 51 AD - Paul&#8217;s Letter of Encouragement and Christ&#8217;s Return.
2 Thessalonians Paul 51 AD - Paul Explains More About Christ&#8217;s Return.
1 Timothy Paul 63 AD - Paul Encourages Timothy as a Church Leader.
2 Timothy Paul 66 AD - Paul Encourages Timothy in his Final Letter..
Titus Paul 65 AD - Paul&#8217;s Letter of Encouragement to Titus, a Church Leader.
Philemon Paul 61 AD - Philemon Paul 61 AD Paul Asks Philemon to Forgive Onesimus, his runaway slave.

Peter
1 Peter Peter 63 AD Enduring Persecution and Suffering.
2 Peter Peter 66 AD False Teachers and the Return of Christ.

http://www.time4god.com/books-of-the-bible.html

 

[CarlosTheJackal]

Historical writings by the early Church Fathers certainly support the monarchy of the Church and the succession of Popes.

St. Clement of Rome, LettertotheCorinthiansAddress(c. 98AD)
“The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which
sojourns in Corinth....Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and
misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have
been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute
among you.”

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 3, 3, 2 (c. 180 AD)
“…by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and
most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the
two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the
tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its
superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the
whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained
the Apostolic tradition.”

Tertullian, The Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 (c. 200 AD)
“Was anything hidden from Peter, who was called the Rock whereon the
Church was to be built: who obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
and the power of loosing and of binding in heaven and on earth.”

St.CyprianofCarthage,LettertoallhisPeople43(40),5(251AD)
“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded
on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar
or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one
priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering.”

St. Pope Julius I, Acknowledging Your Letter [contained in St.
Athanasius’ Apology Against the Arians 35] (341 AD)
“And above all, why was nothing written to us about the Church of the
Alexandrians? Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to
us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place?”

St. Jerome, Letter to Pope Damasus 15, 2 (inter 374-379 AD)
“I speak with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the Cross.
Though I acknowledge none as first except Christ, I am joined in communion with Your Holiness, that is to say, in communion with the
Chair of Peter. I know that it is upon that rock that the Church has been
built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane.”

God bless,

 

[CLARKY]

Jesus called Peter to reaffirm his love, which he did and was given primacy over the lambs, shearlings and sheep of the flock of Jesus ( John 21: 15-17 )

Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior promised to build His Church upon Simon Bar-Jona aka "Cephas" aka Simon Peter, the "Rock". Matthew 16:16-19 And Jesus answered him, ``Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.'' (Matt 16:17-19).