Peter's rise and fall as the head of the little flock

[Guojing]

One of the revelations I had, is realizing that Peter's status was so intimately linked to the status of the nation of Israel in the eyes of God.

As Israel fell in the eyes of God, the status of Peter fell accordingly, and the Holy Spirit gave clues in the book of Acts to let all of us know.

The 4 Gospels: Peter was the clear leader

Peter, as designated by Christ himself, was suppose to lead the little flock of Jewish believers.

The key passage that many would be familiar with is when he was given the "keys to the kingdom" in Matthew 16

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Acts 2 to Acts 7: Peter was the clear leader of the little flock

And boy, did he started off with a bang from Acts 2 onwards, he was leading the rest.

Acts 7-Acts 12: Transition from Peter to James, the brother of Jesus

But by the time Stephen was stoned, we could see that the kingdom program was indeed fading away, Israel the nation was rapidly diminishing and by the time Acts 12:17, the interesting remark Peter made when God rescued him from Herod's prison

17 But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, Go shew these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went into another place.

The name James came into the picture, and I think for the first time, this half brother of Jesus was mentioned as the leader of the little flock.

Acts 15: James was the leader at the Jerusalem Council

A few years later at Acts 15:19-22, we saw the same James leading the flock and it was him who made the final decision, indicating the keys of the kingdom has passed from Peter to James.

Post Acts 15: Peter was afraid of the men from James

More evidence of that passing came from Paul's writings in the 2nd part of Galatians 2, where Peter was recorded as

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.

Imagine, Peter was chosen by Jesus himself to be the head of the little flock and given the keys to the kingdom.

However, by the time Galatians 2 came about, which recorded events after Acts 15, he was afraid of the men who "came from James"

Acts 15-end of Acts: Peter was no longer mentioned ever again, James took centerstage.

And the final confirmation of that passing was found in Acts 21:18-25, Peter is no longer even mentioned as a key member of the little flock, its all "James and the elders".

Anyone else here can see and understand what I am explaining here? Any comments?

 

[Albion]

Acts 2 to Acts 7: Peter was the clear leader of the little flock

Hmm. You'd think that if this were true, all the church leaders of the first century AD would have known it as well as you think you do. But they didn't! The notion of the bishop of one city being the boss of the whole church was promoted centuries later and, even then, it was NEVER the view of the whole church, just as it never has been right on up to the present.

 

[Guojing]

Hmm. You'd think that if this were true, all the church leaders of the first century AD would have known it as well as you think you do. But they didn't! The notion of the bishop of one city being the boss of the whole church was promoted centuries later and, even then, it was NEVER the view of the whole church, just as it never has been right on up to the present.

You mean you disagree that peter was leading the little flock in early acts? Isn't his name prominent in Luke account?

 

[Albion]

You mean you disagree that peter was leading the little flock in early acts? Isn't his name prominent in Luke account?

He was "prominent" among the Apostles, just as you said here.

However, the claim that he was THE leader or that he was recognized by the Church as such or that he was anything like a Pope...is in error.

 

[ChetSinger]

I think that in the long run, the reduction in the prominence of Peter occurred not because he did anything wrong, but because the church became more and more Gentile as the decades passed. And the delivery of the gospel to the Gentiles was entrusted to Paul:

On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. - Galatians 2:7-9​

 

[Guojing]

He was "prominent" among the Apostles, just as you said here.

However, the claim that he was THE leader or that he was recognized by the Church as such or that he was anything like a Pope...is in error.

Oh, I never said he was anything like a Pope.

But you do agree that Jesus intended him to lead the little flock when he gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom in Matthew 16? Was that comment to Peter just a causal remark or did it have a deeper meaning?

 

[Guojing]

I think that in the long run, the reduction in the prominence of Peter occurred not because he did anything wrong, but because the church became more and more Gentile as the decades passed. And the delivery of the gospel to the Gentiles was entrusted to Paul:

On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. - Galatians 2:7-9​

He certainly didn't do anything wrong.

As I stated, "Peter's status was so intimately linked to the status of the nation of Israel in the eyes of God. As Israel fell in the eyes of God, the status of Peter fell accordingly"

It was Israel who did something wrong.

 

[ChetSinger]

He certainly didn't do anything wrong.

As I stated, "Peter's status was so intimately linked to the status of the nation of Israel in the eyes of God. As Israel fell in the eyes of God, the status of Peter fell accordingly"

It was Israel who did something wrong.

Israel did indeed, and Jesus prophesied of the destruction of Jerusalem as a result.

But I think there's an aspect of this that doesn't involve anyone's misbehavior.

Paul writes that Peter was entrusted with the gospel to the Jews and he himself to the Gentiles.

Jesus always intended the gospel to be preached to all nations. After Babel, Israel was but one nation among more than seventy. So, it was inevitable that the proportion of the church that was Jewish would gradually shrink from 100% to a number that was much lower, leaving Paul with a much greater influence.

 

[Guojing]

Israel did indeed, and Jesus prophesied of the destruction of Jerusalem as a result.

But I think there's an aspect of this that doesn't involve anyone's misbehavior.

Paul writes that Peter was entrusted with the gospel to the Jews and he himself to the Gentiles.

Jesus always intended the gospel to be preached to all nations. After Babel, Israel was but one nation among more than seventy. So, it was inevitable that the proportion of the church that was Jewish would gradually shrink from 100% to a number that was much lower, leaving Paul with a much greater influence.

Yes, the gospel of the kingdom was always meant to be preached to all nations (Matthew 24:14)

But under the OT prophetic timetable, Israel was to be saved first, before any gentiles could be reached. Zechariah 8 spelt that timetable out most clearly, notice the final verse?

But by the time Israel leaders stoned Stephen in Acts 7, this timetable was in jeopardy. Israel was in no position to reach the gentiles when the nation herself rejected the Holy Spirit speaking thru Stephen.

God already foresaw all this of course (Ephesians 3:9). But that is another thread.

 

[Albion]

Oh, I never said he was anything like a Pope.

Okay. I must have misunderstood.

But you do agree that Jesus intended him to lead the little flock when he gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom in Matthew 16?

No. That is an interpretation that the church of Rome came up with many years later. And why not, since it would make the bishop at Rome the ruler of the whole church if this revisionist history were believed?

Was that comment to Peter just a causal remark or did it have a deeper meaning?

Deeper meaning.

 

[SkyWriting]

Oh, I never said he was anything like a Pope.

But you do agree that Jesus intended him to lead the little flock when he gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom in Matthew 16? Was that comment to Peter just a causal remark or did it have a deeper meaning?

I read it that Peter was becoming a stumbling block and he intended to emphasize the next two paragraphs for his benefit, but Peter was trying to be a supportive optimist as a man, but Jesus was speaking prophesy about what he already knew was going to happen.

Like ........Hey Peter, shut up for a minute......I'm talking about foundational things that are coming that I'm going to build my church on.......listen up:

 

[Guojing]

Okay. I must have misunderstood.


No. That is an interpretation that the church of Rome came up with many years later. And why not, since it would make the bishop at Rome the ruler of the whole church if this revisionist history were believed?

But as I stated, if you accept my description of how the account in the book of Acts went, from the rise to the fall of Peter, by the time Acts 15 arrived, Peter is no longer in charge of the little flock.

So if there is anyone who should be the "the bishop at Rome the ruler of the whole church", not that I have a vested interest in that since I am not from the RCC, it should not be Peter but James, the brother of Jesus.

 

[Guojing]

I read it that Peter was becoming a stumbling block and he intended to emphasize the next two paragraphs for his benefit, but Peter was trying to be a supportive optimist as a man, but Jesus was speaking prophesy about what he already knew was going to happen.

Like ........Hey Peter, shut up for a minute......I'm talking about foundational things that are coming that I'm going to build my church on.......listen up:

But Jesus called him the rock, and said upon this rock he will build the little flock. That is what Matthew 16:18-19 literally says correct?

 

[Albion]

So if there is anyone who should be the "the bishop at Rome the ruler of the whole church", not that I have a vested interest in that since I am not from the RCC, it should not be Peter but James, the brother of Jesus.

Some do argue that James was the de facto head of the Apostles since he was the bishop in Jerusalem (not inconsequential in the life of Jesus!) and he was the host of the Council of Jerusalem. That wouldn't make him a Pope, but if the debate is over who was the leader of the church if there indeed was any leader, then....

 

[Guojing]

Some do argue that James was the de facto head of the Apostles since he was the bishop in Jerusalem (not inconsequential in the life of Jesus!) and he was the host of the Council of Jerusalem. That wouldn't make him a Pope, but if the debate is over who was the leader of the church if there indeed was any leader, then....

Yes, one thing that amazed me, when I read the historical account of Acts, is how James basically came out of nowhere literally to becoming the head of the little flock.

He only believed in Jesus after the resurrection, so he was not even commissioned by Christ himself. At least it was not recorded in scripture, only that Paul made a remark in 1 Cor 15 that Christ also appeared to James his brother after he resurrected (1 Corinthians 15:7)

I wished Luke would have given more details about the emergence of James. But the Holy Spirit chose to not to let us know all these details.

But never mind, in heaven, when we have perfect knowledge, we will know the details surrounding that. =)

 

[SkyWriting]

But Jesus called him the rock, and said upon this rock he will build the little flock. That is what Matthew 16:18-19 literally says correct?

I say not. I believe he was calling on Peter to listen to the next three paragraphs and not referring to him as a rock at all. Just a little while later he calls Peter a stumbling block. So no. He's not referring to Peter as both a cornerstone and a block head at the same time. The "rock" is what he is relating, not Peter.

 

[SkyWriting]

But Jesus called him the rock, and said upon this rock he will build the little flock. That is what Matthew 16:18-19 literally says correct?

Try reading it like this: "Peter, will you just listen to what I'm teaching here? This is what I'm building my church on if you'd just be quiet and listen."

 

[Guojing]

Try reading it like this: "Peter, will you just listen to what I'm teaching here? This is what I'm building my church on if you'd just be quiet and listen."

His original name is Simon. Peter in Greek means Petros, which means stone or rock.

18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
[URL='https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-16-19/']19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.[/URL]

You don't believe in the KJV being the authority in the English Bible translation?

 

[chad kincham]

Oh, I never said he was anything like a Pope.

But you do agree that Jesus intended him to lead the little flock when he gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom in Matthew 16? Was that comment to Peter just a causal remark or did it have a deeper meaning?

Keys symbolize authority- 2 chapters later Jesus gave the same authority of binding and loosing to the other apostles, in chapter 18.

 

[Guojing]

Keys symbolize authority- 2 chapters later Jesus gave the same authority of binding and loosing to the other apostles, in chapter 18.

I see. To confirm your view, you believed Peter was never meant to be the leader of the 12?

I thought the way his name kept being mentioned prominently in both the 4 gospels account, as well as early Acts, was meant to teach us that.

But by the end of Acts, that doesn't matter, he faded away and James, the brother of Jesus took centerstage.