What Scripture verse show that Peter was the leader?
I read the Book entitled "The Rock" long ago.
Unfortunately I have misplaced it.
In the book there were quite a few bible verses and passages that show that the Peter was appointed the leader and the other apostles recognized that and adhered to it.
I need to refresh those in memory. So I ask what verses and passages in Scripture (and if you know some from sacred tradition) show that the other apostles treated Peter as their leader? Peace and kindness,
Fred
There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).
Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32).
Ordering of the names is a weak argument and is, at best circumstantial. Without any other specific evidence, such an argument will not stand. Further, there are notable exceptions to this also which suggest that this was not done intentionally to present a specific message of primacy, for example, John 1:44. A very significant example is Acts 15, at the Council of Jerusalem. If Peter had primacy, certainly it should have been evident at the council, but Peter was neither the spokesman (Paul and Barnabas were), nor did he speak first, and typically the decision maker or chairman will be the last to speak to provide the summary as to what the decision is and what is to be done and that was James.
Quote:
Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69),
Please recheck your references. It would be a stretech to say any of these were presenting Peter as a spokesman.
Quote:
and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28).
Again, a very weak argument.
Quote:
On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40),
Not true. They all were speaking prior to Peter, because they said that they heard them in their own languages.
Acts 2:4
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other
tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
NKJV
Peter then spoke up to explain what was happening. The fact that Peter was the last one to speak (not the first) and gave the sermon does not imply anything with respect to leadership. The fact that all the apostles were speaking is also emphasized by the fact that crowd responded to them all, not just Peter:
Acts 2:37
37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the
rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"
NKJV
Quote:
and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7).
The first miracle in the New Testament was performed by Jesus, not any of the apostles (John 2:1-12). Numerous miracles were performed in the Gospels and by other disciples (not necessarily apostles) such as in Luke 10:17-20, so the miracles in Acts 3 were not even the first performed by believers in the New Testament. Even if the intent is to address the first miracles performed by the Apostles after Pentecost, this is still not accurate, because the first miracles performed after Pentecost were in Acts 2 and scripture does not record the specifics of the first.
Acts 2:43-44
43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through
the apostles.
NKJV
Quote:
It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17).
This was not unique to peter. Evidence that this was also for other church leaders is found here:
1 Pet:5:1
The elders among you I exhort, who am a fellow-elder, and a witness of
the sufferings of Christ, who am also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2 Tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not of
constraint, but willingly, according to the will of God; nor yet for filthy lucre, but of
a ready mind;
3 neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you, but making yourselves
ensamples to the flock.
4 And when the chief Shepherd shall be manifested, ye shall receive the crown of
glory that fadeth not away.
Neither was this authority given to Peter alone to dispense. Here are the words of Paul:
Acts 20:25
And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I went about
preaching the kingdom, shall see my face no more.
26 Wherefore I testify unto you this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
27 For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God.
28 Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath
made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own
blood.
Quote:
An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7),
Actually, it was announced to the two Marys just prior to that and they were told to go tell the disciples.
Quote:
and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34).
Again, very weak. In fact it only says that he appeared to him. It does not say that Peter is the first person that He appeared to. And even if that were the case, that would not mean that he was leader.
Quote:
He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26),
The suggestion here is that this was a meeting specifically for this purpose whereas scripture states that this was just one items which was raised during the meetings:
Acts 1:14-17
14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women
and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.
15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the
number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said, 16 Men and brethren,
this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of
David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus; 17 for he
was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry."
NKJV
Peter, in a middle of what was essentially a prayer meeting came forward with a recommendation. Not everyone who makes a recommendation during a prayer meeting is the leader; indeed this is more often than not, not the case.
Quote:
and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41).
This is true, but again has no bearing on leadership over the apostles.
Quote:
He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11),
Yes, this is true. Just as it is true that when Peter was out of line on a doctrinal issue, Paul rebuked him.
Gal 2:11-12
11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he
was to be blamed; NKJV
If the ability to rebuke indicates positional authority, that would place Paul over Peter.
Quote:
and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23).
Again true, but being the first to do so does not make him leader.
Quote:
He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11).
This was mentioned earlier and is notable because Peter is recorded as one of the speakers who provided some key input but not the decision maker. Indeed, the decision was a joint decision and was not made by even the apostles alone, but also by the elders. The leader and the person who announced the decision was James who specifically states that it is his judgement / decision (Acts 15:19)
[quote]It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).
This is true, but again has no bearing on leadership over the apostles.
If this is the best argument that you have, it is incredibly weak. Indeed, using the same logic, a stronger argument could be put forward for Paul, or even James.
Ok, look. Honestly, I cannot see the point of debating this really...I presume that you are pretty well dug in on your view so it's highly unlikely that anyone here is going to offer a compelling enough argument to sway your perspective on the matter...as well as the rest of the faithful lot of Catholics who have already posted (I don't mean that disparagingly, only factually).
I'm not saying this to be mean spirited but I do recall somewhere in another post that you were pretty upset at how often people challenged the idea that Peter was the first Pontiff. So, I guess I'm a little perplexed by this post because usually you seem to post questions here to solicit responses and dialogue for perhaps matters that you are chewing on. However, I do wonder if this matter isn't one you have already put to bed. So, I'm just asking for a little clarification of your motivation in posting this because...well, I dunno.
Any comments, Fred. Hey, I'm just trying to be real, that's all.
Ok, look. Honestly, I cannot see the point of debating this really...I presume that you are pretty well dug in on your view so it's highly unlikely that anyone here is going to offer a compelling enough argument to sway your perspective on the matter...as well as the rest of the faithful lot of Catholics who have already posted (I don't mean that disparagingly, only factually).
I'm not saying this to be mean spirited but I do recall somewhere in another post that you were pretty upset at how often people challenged the idea that Peter was the first Pontiff. So, I guess I'm a little perplexed by this post because usually you seem to post questions here to solicit responses and dialogue for perhaps matters that you are chewing on. However, I do wonder if this matter isn't one you have already put to bed. So, I'm just asking for a little clarification of your motivation in posting this because...well, I dunno.
Any comments, Fred. Hey, I'm just trying to be real, that's all.
From the context of the question, Fred is asking Catholics for apologetical information.
Obviously, if you don't believe that Peter is the leader of the Apostles, you wouldn't respond to his question. Would you?
From the context of the question, Fred is asking Catholics for apologetical information.
Obviously, if you don't believe that Peter is the leader of the Apostles, you wouldn't respond to his question. Would you?
De Maria - sure, I agree that he is asking Catholics the question...yeah, I certainly wouldn't respond to the question, although I am considering laying out an argument for the contrary. Like I said, Fred seems to have a strong position already on the subject, but he's asking for apologetical information.
Again, I'm really not trying to be mean spirited here. To me, this question is akin to a Catholic vehemently defending the Catholic church as the true church, and then going over in another thread and asking other Catholics if the Catholic Church is the true church...implying that he may not be sure if it is. Hey, I've got no problem with the question, I was just hoping that Fred might divulge a little more about where the motivation for asking it is coming from, that's all.
De Maria, I presume that you and Fred have a good rapport in this forum so I respect the fact that you are defending him. But again, he need not be defended because I am not attacking him. Just an honest question, really.
Ordering of the names is a weak argument and is, at best circumstantial. Without any other specific evidence, such an argument will not stand.
Not really. It is customary in almost every culture to list the leader first. And we do have much more evidence.
Quote:
Further, there are notable exceptions to this also which suggest that this was not done intentionally to present a specific message of primacy, for example, John 1:44.
He is listed first some 17 times. But you go by the exception?
And he is called first in Scripture:
Matt 10:2 The first, Simon, who is called Peter,
And he is singled out:
Acts 2:37
Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles,
Mark 16:7
But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee:
Quote:
A very significant example is Acts 15, at the Council of Jerusalem. If Peter had primacy, certainly it should have been evident at the council, but Peter was neither the spokesman (Paul and Barnabas were), nor did he speak first, and typically the decision maker or chairman will be the last to speak to provide the summary as to what the decision is and what is to be done and that was James.
That isn't true. Typically the Chairman of the board sets the tone and direction of the meeting: 7And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
This is what St. Peter did.
Quote:
Please recheck your references. It would be a stretech to say any of these were presenting Peter as a spokesman.
But this one is pretty obvious:
Acts 5: 2And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. 3But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
Obviously, Ananias didn't lie to God directly. He lied to Peter. Yet Peter says that he lied to God.
That is pretty much the Catholic Teaching. Lets review what Jesus said to Simon:
Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
In other words, Jesus appointed St. Peter as God's representative.
Is Moses God? Of course not. But what did God say?
Exodus 7 1 And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
Why did God call Moses God? Because He appointed Moses as His representative before Pharoa and the people:
Exodus 19 9 The Lord said to him: Lo, now will I come to thee in the darkness of a cloud, that the people may hear me speaking to thee, and may believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people to the Lord.
And what did God do in the New Testament? God also selected a man to represent Him. Simon Bar-Jonah.
Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Who is the Rock?
1 Corinthians 10 4 And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.
Christ is the Rock!
And the Rock turned to Simon and said, "YOU ARE ROCK and on this Rock I will build my Church"
So God gave Simon the name that represents God.
2 Kings 22 2 And he said: The Lord is my rock, and my strength, and my saviour.
Why? Because Simon now represents God before men.
Therefore Jesus also gave Him the keys to the Kingdom:
Matthew 16 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Thereby giving Simon the authority to save. He can open and close the door to heaven, therefore, he can save.
And so, St. Peter can say that Ananias lied to God when he lied to St. Peter.
Quote:
Again, a very weak argument.
But its much stronger than yours.
Quote:
Not true. They all were speaking prior to Peter, because they said that they heard them in their own languages.
Acts 2:4
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other
tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
NKJV
Peter then spoke up to explain what was happening. The fact that Peter was the last one to speak (not the first) and gave the sermon does not imply anything with respect to leadership. The fact that all the apostles were speaking is also emphasized by the fact that crowd responded to them all, not just Peter:
Acts 2:37
37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the
rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"
NKJV
Your own references prove you wrong. Note how the people singled out Peter. They addressed Peter as the spokesman for the Apostles.
Quote:
The first miracle in the New Testament was performed by Jesus, not any of the apostles (John 2:1-12). Numerous miracles were performed in the Gospels and by other disciples (not necessarily apostles) such as in Luke 10:17-20, so the miracles in Acts 3 were not even the first performed by believers in the New Testament. Even if the intent is to address the first miracles performed by the Apostles after Pentecost, this is still not accurate, because the first miracles performed after Pentecost were in Acts 2 and scripture does not record the specifics of the first.
Acts 2:43-44
43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through
the apostles.
NKJV
But the first miracle of the Church age is performed by Peter. What miracle was performed by the Apostles in Acts 2? That statement only affirms that many miracles were performed by the Apostles. The first of which was performed by Peter and listed in the next Chapter.
Quote:
This was not unique to peter. Evidence that this was also for other church leaders is found here:
1 Pet:5:1
The elders among you I exhort, who am a fellow-elder, and a witness of
the sufferings of Christ, who am also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2 Tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not of
constraint, but willingly, according to the will of God; nor yet for filthy lucre, but of
a ready mind;
3 neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you, but making yourselves
ensamples to the flock.
4 And when the chief Shepherd shall be manifested, ye shall receive the crown of
glory that fadeth not away.
Neither was this authority given to Peter alone to dispense. Here are the words of Paul:
Acts 20:25
And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I went about
preaching the kingdom, shall see my face no more.
26 Wherefore I testify unto you this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
27 For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God.
28 Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath
made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own
blood.
It is unique to Peter. Jesus didn't direct these words to anyone else:
Luke 22:31
And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
John 21:17
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
Jesus, the One who counts, directed these words to Peter. Not to any of the other Apostles. That's pretty unique.
Quote:
Actually, it was announced to the two Marys just prior to that and they were told to go tell the disciples.
They were told to go to
Mark 16:7But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
Again, Peter is singled out.
Quote:
Again, very weak. In fact it only says that he appeared to him. It does not say that Peter is the first person that He appeared to. And even if that were the case, that would not mean that he was leader.
But putting all the evidence together, it is what would be expected. And thus, his leadership role is again confirmed.
Quote:
The suggestion here is that this was a meeting specifically for this purpose whereas scripture states that this was just one items which was raised during the meetings:
Acts 1:14-17
14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women
and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.
15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the
number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said, 16 Men and brethren,
this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of
David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus; 17 for he
was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry."
NKJV
Peter, in a middle of what was essentially a prayer meeting came forward with a recommendation. Not everyone who makes a recommendation during a prayer meeting is the leader; indeed this is more often than not, not the case.
Finding the replacement for Judas, an apostle of our Lord Jesus, is a small thing?
Obviously, the one with the authority to make such a recommendation was the leader. Again, Peter fills the role, confirming yet again that he is the Prince of the Apostles.
Quote:
this is true, but again has no bearing on leadership over the apostles.
Sure it is. It is further confirmation of his leadership role.
Quote:
Yes, this is true. Just as it is true that when Peter was out of line on a doctrinal issue, Paul rebuked him.
Gal 2:11-12
11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he
was to be blamed; NKJV
If the ability to rebuke indicates positional authority, that would place Paul over Peter.
1. It was not a doctrinal issue. But a behaviorial issue.
2. St. Paul did not punish St. Peter. He "rebuked" him. He brought to St. Peter's attention that he believed St. Peter was setting the wrong example.
In Acts 5, St. Peter punished Ananias with death. What sentence or punishment did St. Paul impose on St. Peter as a result of this rebuke?
I would also note that in this rebuke, Scripture reveals that St. Paul was not yet perfected, since he also had previously acted hypocritically when he circumcised Timoth due to pressure from the Jewish Christians:
Acts 16:3
Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
Quote:
Again true, but being the first to do so does not make him leader.
Being first is one attribute of leadership.
Quote:
This was mentioned earlier and is notable because Peter is recorded as one of the speakers who provided some key input but not the decision maker. Indeed, the decision was a joint decision and was not made by even the apostles alone, but also by the elders. The leader and the person who announced the decision was James who specifically states that it is his judgement / decision (Acts 15:19)
That is your Protestant twist on the issue. It is evident that St. Peter made the decision and the group ratified it.
Quote:
It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).
This is true, but again has no bearing on leadership over the apostles.
Sure it is. If any other had claimed the God wanted to accept the gentiles into the flock, they would have been laughed to tears. That is why God elected the leader to first reveal this news.
Quote:
If this is the best argument that you have, it is incredibly weak. Indeed, using the same logic, a stronger argument could be put forward for Paul, or even James.
If you could provide a stronger argument, you would have. The absence of such an argument from your quarter speaks volumes.
Mark 10:42-45
42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
(KJV)
Mark 10:42-45
42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
(KJV)
Isn't that plain enough?
Not really; especially if the intent is to disprove the primacy of Peter. This doesn’t say no chief. It says that the chiefest should be the servant of all. It doesn’t say no great men, it says that great men are ministers. And, the greatest of the ministers was Christ who gave His live in service to mankind.
Do you not agree? If not then those who hold Martin Luther in great esteem would be well advised to hold him to the same contempt that Martin Luther held for the Pope.
So I ask what verses and passages in Scripture (and if you know some from sacred tradition) show that the other apostles treated Peter as their leader?
Peace and kindness,
Linear Mode
