While Matthew’s account of Jesus’ words at Caesarea Philippi (discussed earlier) is the most commonly cited passage by Catholic apologists to defend the institution of the papacy, the passage concerning the “Council of Jerusalem” in Acts is most frequently cited to point to the exercise of papal authority. The setting was the controversy over St. Paul’s mission to the gentiles - particularly his insistence that they need not become Jews to follow Christ. This was anathema to some among the Jewish followers of Jesus and the resulting friction between the two factions necessitated a meeting among the leaders of the fledgling Church.
St. Luke gives us his account in Acts 15:
Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and were bringing great joy to all the brethren.
When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and (L)the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.” The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter.
After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.” All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.
After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, “Brethren, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written,
After these things I will return, and I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen, and I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the gentiles who are called by My Name says the Lord who makes these things known from long ago
Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas–Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, and they sent this letter by them, “The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings. Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.”
Catholic apologists point to the key role of St. Peter in the procedings and assert this is an exercise of the universal jurisdiction given to him by Christ. But is that what is actually happening? Once we get past the preconceived ideas, there is little evidence to support this assertion. First of all, we have the matter of the council being called in Jersualem. Why there? If St. Peter were all Catholics claimed him to be, then why not in the city where he was located. We know that he had left Jerusalem by that time and had gone to Antioch. Tradition holds that he later went to Rome and died there but the exact date of his arrival in Rome is not established by any tradition that dates to sooner than a few centuries after the fact. If he were in Rome, why not send delagates there instead. If he were in Antioch, it is even more confusing since he would have been at the scene of the disagreement and could have made an immediate ruling. Even more confusing is why they did not just let St. Peter decide the matter for them and not bother with the trouble of traveling and risk having all the key members of the Church in a city where they were in grave danger.
All of this is, of course, circumstantial, but it does raise some sobering questions. These questions become more pronounced when one actually reads the specific exchanges within the council and asks oneself how a decision was reached. If the Catholic case is correct, St. Peter’s pronouncement should pretty much settle the issue and the Church would just humbly submit to his decision. Yet this is not what happens.
In the council, we first have St. Paul and St. Barnabas giving their testimony and then some members of the Pharisees who had become followers of Christ insisted they be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses. The apostles and elders then debated the matter with St. Peter then giving his testimony of how he saw the gentiles receive the Holy Spirit. Obviously he was siding with St. Paul and indeed this was a powerful endorsement but it was not a ruling. In fact, the case for the gentile mission continued as St. Paul and Barnabas spoke of the signs and wonders that had occurred among the gentile converts. Then St. James, who was by then the leader of the Church in Jerusalem, built upon St. Peter’s statement and showed how it fulfilled prophecy. Then he spoke the words “Therefore, it is my judgment…” and the debate came to an abrupt end. He even adds the caveat of abstaining from food sacrificed to idols and containing blood with no mention of this having been made in the debate. Thus it was St. James and not St. Peter who made the judgment accepted by the Church.
Why St. James and not the leader of the Apostles at the founding of the Church? It is not really mentioned in Holy Scripture and we can only guess at what would be the reason. Presumably, it was well understood at the time since it is mentioned without comment. There are however, a few possibilities that immediately present themselves. The first is that it is a courtesy given to the leader of the local church where the debate occurred. It is a common practice in such debates for the rabbi (and we can assume St. James’ rule to be akin to that of a rabbi in the Church at Jerusalem) to listen to a debate and when a consensus appears to be taking hold to direct it to a conclusion with a ruling that is designed to be a fair to all parties. The climate of the debate clearly was going in St. Paul’s favor and St. James ruled in that manner but perhaps interjected the lesser requirements for unity’s sake.
Another possibility is that Jerusalem was still looked upon as the “mother Church” and its leader would be the acknowledged leader of the Church as a whole (again in the rabbinic and not the dictatorial sense). A third possibility is that the dispute involved members of the Pharisees who would be in the Jerusalem Church and St. James was giving a ruling for his local church and assenting to the prevailing opinion elsewhere. Some scholars have also suggested that for reasons we don’t fully understand, there may have been a shift in leadership from St. Peter to St. James owing to his family ties to Jesus and perhaps other unmentioned events in the early Church. As evidence, they point to the fact that Eusebius mentions members of Jesus’ family governing the early Church of Jerusalem after St. Peter’s move to Antioch.
The exact reason for St. James ruling does not really concern us as much as the fact that he did rule. It was he who concluded the debate and made the ruling with the minor restrictions added. The important point is that he exercised leadership in the proceedings - certainly not authoritative leadership but in the sense of a rabbi bringing the leaders of the assembly to a consensus. This is not meant as proving some universal role for St. James nor even disproving a leadership role for St. Peter. The important point here is that if St. Peter did have some universal jurisdiction, he chose not to use it and thus the passage cannot be used as evidence of said authority.
In the next installment of this essay (after Christmas), I will discuss relevant passages in I Peter and II Peter that have been introduced as support for papal claims. May the Lord bless you in this season as we prepare to celebrate His birth.
I would suggest a more careful reading of Acts 15.
The source of the controversy concerning Gentiles entering the Church was based in Jerusalem. Therefore, it is not surprising that the first Church council takes place at the center of the controversy, Jerusalem in Judea. Note that in Acts 10:34ff, God uses Peter to decide the matter concerning the acceptance of Gentiles into the Church. Peter justifies his opening the door to Gentiles through baptism in Jerusalem and the church was satisfied in Acts 11.
In council and after a long discussion, Peter stands up and addresses these members of the Pharisees’ party. All fall silent and the discussion is ended. Barnabas, Paul and James offer their confirmation of Peter’s testimony. Tertullian and Chrysostom both point out that it is Peter’s testimony that ends the controversy and silences the assembly. FF Bruce, the illustrious Bible scholar at the University of Manchester in his commentary on the book of Acts (Eerdmans, pg 291) also points out that the weight of Peter’s testimony carries unique authority in the council.
Jerome (Epistle 112 to Augustine), points out that Peter was the prime mover in issuing the decree and its primary author. Interestingly, James stands to give further support to what Peter had already decided. In vs 19, James says, “ego krino,” which, Bible scholars such as Newman, Nido, Moffatf, & Lenski point out is merely the assertion of one’s own opinion, ie, “in my opinion.” G Campbell Morgan, prominent Protestant scholar points out, “it is absurd to believe that James at this moment gave his personal opinion as the final word, from which there could be no appeal…The very emphasis on the “I” shows that he was only expressing a personal conviction.” (Acts of the Apostles, Revell, pgs 362-363)
Note that the apostolic letter that the council sends is written in the name of the Holy Spirit and the apostles and presbyters. This letter confirms Peter’s decision to open the Church to Gentiles while asking them to abide by the Noachide Laws, in order to avoid scandalizing Jewish Christians.
Later, Paul would meet with Peter in Jerusalem (Gal 1:18). This meeting, as the Greek word historesai and Chrysostom (Homilies on Galations 12-13) point out, was for the purpose of examining and learning from Peter for an extended period. After this meeting with Peter, Paul goes out to begin his ministry.
In summary, it is Peter, whom God uses to open the apostolic Church to the Gentiles. Peter’s testimony ends discussion and silences the apostolic assembly in Jerusalem in Acts 11 and ends discussion and silences council discussion in Jerusalem in chapter 15. After Peter’s decree, Barnabas, Paul and James confirm his decision. Clearly, Peter plays the pivotal and primary role in the first half of Acts and in the council of Jerusalem.
Gil,
First off the center of the controversy was not in Jerusalem but in Antioch. It was in Antioch that an innovation was taking place and those in Jerusalem were doing things as they had always been done. The fact that they were dead wrong doesn’t alter the fact that they were defending the status quo in this case and Antioch was deviating from the norm. This is affirmed by the text since Sts. Paul and Barnabas were appointed to go to Jerusalem to speak with the Apostles and elders about the question. There is no indication that a general council had been called and all the Apostles were invited. It cannot even be assumed that all the living Apostles were in attendance. We know Sts. Peter and James, the brother of the Lord (what that means is an argument for another day but I suspect we are in basic agreement there) were in attendance. We know St. James was running the church in Jerusalem and St. Peter may have been there for other reasons.
In Acts 10 and 11, St. Peter really decides nothing - God does and in a most powerful way. St. Peter says he perceives that the gentiles are now called but renders no definitive ruling in the matter. He became convinced the Gospel of Jesus was opened to the gentiles by the fact that they received the Holy Spirit. It was a case of St. Peter submitting to the witness of the Holy Spirit in their lives and it was this message he relayed when challenged in Judea. Hpwever, the issue in Acts 15 was far more thorny. It was actually not that hard a sell to convince them that the gentiles would now believe in the God of Israel. Many of their prophets said the same thing. The problem was what happens after they become believers. Many Jews believed that once they became believers, they should then obviously become Jews themselves. St. Paul was teaching that not only was it not necessary, but it had no effect on their standing with God. This was the crux of the matter - is the Law of Moses still in effect?
The view of events that St. Luke - who had worked with St. Paul - portrays obviously are demonstrating the unity of two of the most important figures with St. Paul. Only Sts. Peter and James are quoted directly and this demonstrates that they certainly are the two most important figures in the church. Your interpretaion, however, is reading things into the text that simply aren’t there. We know that they listened to Sts. Paul and Barnabas and then debated but we have no idea of the flow of this debate. The only ones we know who opposed the gentile mission were some of the converted Pharisees and no doubt they disputed this vigorously. But none of the apostles are mentioned as opposing it. Many of those in attendance might have been on the fence. Anything else is pure conjecture.
There is no doubting the importance of St. Peter’s testimony but to say there was he rendered a judgment is pure eisegesis. What he undoubtedly did is place the pharisees on the defensive. Now they were not opposing an upstart evangelist from Tarsus who was once a persecutor of Christians but a pillar of the Church. St. Peter had placed his own standing behind the gentile mission. I can imagine that anyone who was on the fence before was swayed by his testimony. Yet no final decision had yet been rendered. Sts. Paul and Barnabas obviously would build upon this support of so key a figure in the early Church and used this opportunity to witness to the things that had been accomplished without further interference.
Now St. James steps in to close the matter out. Remember that I stated he was functioning like a chief rabbi and a meeting of rabbis. His role was not to render authoritative decisions on his own but to preside and guide the meeting to a consensus. A consensus had obviously had been reached with the Pharisees silenced and he adroitly stepped in and rendered a judgment. Furthermore, the added feature of listing the Noachide laws as a lesser discipline was never mentioned elsewhere. It was obviously intended to preserve unity within the Church by tying it in to the requirements for descendants of Noah and preserving some compliance with the Torah. The letter was given in the name of the Holy Spirit, apsotles, and elders because they believed the Holy Spirit had led them to this decision. And it was not St. Peter’s decision as the debate was not over whether gentiles could receive the Holy Spirit but what should be done with them afterwards.
I mentioned this in the article and perhaps I should make this clearer here. In no way am I stating that St. James is a greater apostle or that he had authority over St. Peter. I have mentioned this as a possibility because some scholars have done so but I mentioned other possibilities for him rendering the decision as well. And again I repeat his function was not to impose a decision but to bring the procedings to a close.
Now let’s turn to the Greek phrase “ego krino”. Assuming we are in agreement on “ego”, let’s take a closer look. I think it interesting that you mention scholars from quite some time ago who are hardly representative of the state of biblical scholarship. This is not meant as an insult since their writings were geared for apologetics, but they were as much engaged in apologetics as scholarship and their views tended to have many moments of eisegesis. I am especially puzzled by the choice of “prominent Protestant scholar” G. Campbell Morgan. Morgan was a noted bible teacher and author but I don’t think any of his works are looked upon as “scholarly” by contemporary standards. It is such an obscure choice that I have to wonder where you found it - have you actually read the original or just used it from a secondary source? I can’t say with certainly why he is of the opinion you mention ( I haven’t read that paricular book) but I can venture a good guess. Campbell was a noted “free church” leader (akin to what we would consider Evangelical/Baptist/fundamentalist) who was adamant that there was no authority above the local church. If he were to read James rendering a judgment for the whole church, it would undermine his position. I am fairly sure his opinion is similar as regards St. Peter. It is not surpising that he would have that view.
Now let’s get to the heart of the matter. What does krino mean anyway? Yes it could possibly mean opinion but this is not the normal usage and it is rarely used that way elsewhere in the New Testament. The word means how it is translated - to judge - usually within a legal context. It can also be used to indicate the coming to a decision, to choose, or to separate out but it is ueually rendered as as “judge”. It can also mean to sue, also keeping the legal context. The word (and its variants) appears 98 other times in the New Testament. As a representative sample, here are all the occurrences in the Gospels and Acts:
“If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.” (Matt 5:40)
“Do not judge so that you will not be judged.” (Matt 7:1)
“For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.” (Matt 7:2)
“And Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Matt 19:28)
“Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned.” (Luke 6:37)
“Simon answered and said, “I suppose the one whom he forgave more .” And He said to him, ‘You have judged correctly .’” (Luke 7: 43)
“And why do you not even on your own initiative judge what is right?” (Luke 12:57)
“He said to him, ‘By your own wordsI will judge you, you worthless slave. Did you know thatI am an exacting man, taking up whatI did not lay down and reaping whatI did not sow?” (Luke 19:22)
“that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Luke 22:30)
“For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.” (John 3:17)
“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (John 3:18)
“For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son” (John 5:22)
“I can do nothing on My own initiative. AsI hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, becauseI do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.” (John 5:30)
“Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment .” (John 7:24)
“Our Law does not judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?” (John 7:51)
“You judge according to the flesh; I am not judging anyone.” (John 8:15)
“But even ifI do judge, My judgment is true; forI am not alone in it, butI and the Father who sent Me.” (John 8:16)
“I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and the things whichI heard from Him, these I speak to the world .” (John 8:26)
“But I do not seek My glory; there is One who seeks and judges.” (John 8:50)
“If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them,I do not judge him; forI did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.” (John 12:47)
“He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the wordI spoke is what will judge him at the last day.” (John 12:48)
“and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.” (John 16:11)
“So Pilate said to them, ‘Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law .’ The Jews said to him, ‘We are not permitted to put anyone to death ,’” (John 18:31)
“The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, the one whom you delivered and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him.” (Acts 3:13)
“But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge;” (Acts 4:19)
” ‘AND WHATEVER NATION TO WHICH THEY WILL BE IN BONDAGEI MYSELF WILL JUDGE ,’ said God, ‘AND AFTER THAT THEY WILL COME OUT AND SERVE ME IN THIS PLACE .’ (Acts 7:7)
“For those who live in Jerusalem, and their rulers, recognizing neither Him nor the utterances of the prophets which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled these by condemning Him.” (Acts 13:27)
“Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.” (Acts 13:46)
“Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, ” (Acts 15:19)
“Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the decrees which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe.” (Acts 16:4)
“And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay .” And she prevailed upon us.” (Acts 16:15)
“because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead .” (Acts 17:31)
“For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus so that he would not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hurrying to be in Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost.” (Acts 20:16)
“But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication .” (Acts 21:25)
“Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck ?” (Acts 23:3)
“But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!” (Acts 23:6)
“And he even tried to desecrate the temple; and then we arrested him. We wanted to judge him according to our own Law.” (Acts 24:6)
“other than for this one statement whichI shouted out while standing among them, ‘For the resurrection of the deadI am on trial before you today .’” (Acts 24:21)
“But Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favor, answered Paul and said, “Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and stand trial before me on these charges?” (Acts 25:9)
“But Paul said, “I am standing before Caesar’s tribunal, whereI ought to be tried. I have done no wrong to the Jews, as you also very well know.” (Acts 25:10)
“”Being at a loss how to investigate such matters,I asked whether he was willing to go to Jerusalem and there stand trial on these matters.” (Acts 25:20)
“But I found that he had committed nothing worthy of death; and since he himself appealed to the Emperor, I decided to send him.” (Acts 25:25)
“And nowI am standing trial for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers; ” (Acts 26:6)
“Why is it considered incredible among you people if God does raise the dead?” (Acts 26:8)
“When it was decided that we would sail for Italy, they proceeded to deliver Paul and some other prisoners to a centurion of the Augustan cohort named Julius.” (Acts 27:1)
Obviously, the word is overwhelmingly tied to judgment, decision, or some legal proceding. There is only one case where it could be argued to be related to opinion (Acts 26:8) and even here what is translated as “considered” is alternately translated as “judged” or “deemed” because of its link to krino. The reason for translating it this way is likely the word’s normal link to a legal decision could cause confusion and it was obviously implied by context they judged wrongly. Even more importantly, the word is used when the apostles decision is spoken of later in Acts. Also, the context makes sense that it is a decision (although as I argued not an arbitrary one by St. James) as the terms are laid out and everyone agrees to them. Trying to get around the implication of a decision rendered is wishful thinking at best.
Ignoring Peter’s pivotal role in the book of Acts and hinging the council of Jerusalem on James has been a nifty way to minimize or obliterate Peter’s ministry since the Reformation. It is interesting the comparative novelty of this approach seeing it in light of 1500 years of prior Biblical scholarship. I think that perhaps my point on “ego krino” was lost. Certainly, krino may be taken to mean “judge,” however, in its immediate context of ego, it may have a more transitory meaning. My arguement did not pivot on one meaning of a word or another. Rather, taken in context, Peter’s role as the primary minister of God in the first half of Acts should not be ignored. No other apostle, not even Paul, acts universally in the manner of Peter. It should be striking.
Let’s address the above point by point:
Ignoring Peter’s pivotal role in the book of Acts and hinging the council of Jerusalem on James has been a nifty way to minimize or obliterate Peter’s ministry since the Reformation. It is interesting the comparative novelty of this approach seeing it in light of 1500 years of prior Biblical scholarship.
I believe they call this the fallacy of the red herring. Frame the debate in terms that distort its actual content while associating your opponenst views with indefensible positions.
Let’s get to the actual facts. At no point have I ignored St. Peter’s pivotal role in Acts as anyone reading my essay and the expansion of the essay in the comments can see for themselves. I have stated quite explicitly in this section and the preceding sections that St. Peter was the rock that Jesus prophecied the Church would be built upon, the prophecy was fulfilled with his being first to preach the risen Christ to both Jew and Gentile, that he was the head of the early Church at Jerusalem until his leaving for Antioch, that his support of St. Paul likely swayed many at the Council of Jerusalem, etc. I am completely at a loss as to how I can be labeled as one who is “ignoring Peter’s pivotal role in the book of Acts”.
I suspect it is because I refuse to subscribe to a theory of the papacy that the Catholic Church’s greatest orthodox theologians believe developed over centuries upon reflection on the deposit of faith and anachronistically apply it to a first century context. Claiming 1500 years of prior scholarship only reveals that you haven’t spent a lot of time with anything aside from Roman sources. The autocratic form of leadership that became centered around the papacy is a largely Western concept that completely misreads the generally Eastern and particularly Hebraic contexts of the New Testament writings. One can exercise great leadership and even be recognized as the head of the assembly but this does not imply the type of signular authority that later developed within the Western Church in the medieval period.
As for “hinging the council of Jerusalem on James”, you have completely distorted what I wrote. I stated that he presided as a chief rabbi would over the council but never stated that the events of the council hinged on him. In fact, I was quite explicit that his role as presider was to move towards concensus and not rule in a singular manner. Thus when the council seemed to have reached a concensus, he closed the proceedings with a ruling. Presiding over the council does not imply leadership over the whole Church. It merely implies he saw unity in the Apostles present and framed the decision in terms that would preserve unity and all agreed to the decision.
I suppose there have been many “nifty way to minimize or obliterate Peter’s ministry since the Reformation”. I believe that I spent close to the first half of the section “Upon This Rock” debunking them so I am not sure where the issue there is. But just as many Protestants have wrongly minimized St. Peter’s role, many Catholic sources since medieval times have distorted his role to support their own ecclesiological developments. The sword cuts both ways.
I think that perhaps my point on “ego krino” was lost. Certainly, krino may be taken to mean “judge,” however, in its immediate context of ego, it may have a more transitory meaning. My arguement did not pivot on one meaning of a word or another. Rather, taken in context, Peter’s role as the primary minister of God in the first half of Acts should not be ignored.
It is misleading to state that “krino” may be taken to mean judge. That is in fact the primary meaning of the word as its use throughout the New Testament attests. Even when secondary meanings are implied, there is always the context of a decision being made rather than a nebulous opinion. Thus you don’t see it being translated as “I believe” or “I think” but rather as “I judge” or “I decide”. The unanimity of the opinon among translators is certainly telling in this respect.
St. Peter’s role as primary minister of God in the first half of Acts isn’t being ignored. But there is a huge difference between being the leader of the early Church and having universal jurisdiction as the infalible vicar of Christ. If St. Peter had such a role or believed he had such a role and others believed he had such a role, it is astounding to me that no one bothered to mention it. In a book so concerned with the structure of the early Church, how did St. Luke miss one of the defining marks of the Church?
While I am on this topic, allow me to return to the entire point of this essay. Frankly, I don’t have any problem with Catholics like yourself believing what you do. Many noble saints have - but many have not. As I stated in the introduction, as an Anglo-Catholic I am often asked why not Rome? This essay is merely to point out that the commonly cited passages “proving” the papacy only do so when you bring the Catholic tradition along with it. If you use the Eastern Orthodox tradition, for example, you wind up with something else entirely. The problem is as you get earlier and earlier, the picture gets sketchier and sketchier.
I think it is quite reasonable to believe that the Church might as Cardinal Newman suggested over the centuries develop more fully doctrines of the faith. This is certainly the case with the Doctrine of the Trinity where the beliefs were present in a nascent form and that the Church developed more fully when a challenge arose. Thus you might argue - and many notable Catholic theologians do - that the role of St. Peter and his successors was present in the New Testament but nor fully realized by the Church and the Church’ understanding of the Petrine ministry grew over the centuries. But to argue that an event in the New Testament is somehow a “proof” of the papacy is pure folly. The Apostles did not understand his role that way nor did the early Fathers. All saw St. Peter as having a special and unique place among the twelve. But there is no indication that this extended to a role of universal governance nor one of infalibility.
No other apostle, not even Paul, acts universally in the manner of Peter. It should be striking.
What is striking is how the Apostles did everything as a group. When a successor to Judas was needed after his betrayal, the Apostles did not leave the decision to St. Peter even though he was clearly the leader of the early Church and was presiding over the meeting. Instead they as a group put forward two men and drew lots. When there was a need to serve the widows, the twelve as a group chose the men who would perform the task. Again at the Council of Jerusalem, there was a decision made by the leadership as a whole. Certainly we find different Apostles making decisions on the spot in certain local matters involving individuals but if these affected the whole Church, they were liable to be challenged. Thus we see St. Peter challenged when he first preaches the good news to the gentiles but they relented when it is clearly revealed as the work of the Holy Spirit.
If the early Church perceived such a role for St. Peter, they demonstrated a profound lack of respect. You would agree, I believe, that St. Peter would have either been leader in Antioch, or Jerusalem. If Rome, why not go to Rome but instead leave it to a potentially hostile group in Jerusalem? If Antioch, why not just go to St. Peter and ask him - they would have been in the same city!! There might have been the possibility that St. Peter visiting Jerusalem at the time (a likely scenario given he was there), but the party from Antioch was not sent to them but to all the Apostles and elders at Jerusalem. Apparently, the Church of Jerusalem still likely held a place of honor as mother Church and was consulted on the matter. St. Pete was certainly among the leaders - perhaps the key figure in shaping opinion - but he was not recognized as an making singular rulings for the whole Church.