Galatians 2: 1-3

1213 Words3 Pages

g. The leading position was seemingly held by James, the brother of our Lord, in the early years of the Church. Consider the Council at Jerusalem which is recorded in the fifteenth chapter of Acts, especially verses 13 to 29.
h. Regardless of who was the leader, the Council’s decision was not one leader’s authoritative action. The decision and its implementation were the Council’s collegial action. What we see here is the “collegiality” of the apostles rather than the sole dictatorship like the monarchical papacy of the Roman Church.
i. The apostles as a body in Jerusalem sent Peter and John to Samaria on a mission (Acts: 14-17).
j. Paul withstood Peter to the face in the presence of others when he found Peter’s action to be against the principle of the Gospel (Galatians 2:1-14).
k. There was a rough division of the mission field …show more content…

In the days of the apostles, it appears that the prominent leader was James, the brother of Jesus, rather than Peter. The story in Acts 15 about the historic Council of the apostles and the elders who gathered to discuss a vitally important theological issue shows this. In the meeting of the Council Peter made an important contribution, but it was James who made the final conclusive speech and his proposal was adopted as a whole and implemented. It appears that James acted as the chairman at the Council. Elsewhere the apostle Paul says that James, Peter and John were “reputed to be pillars” of the Jerusalem church (Galatians 2:9). Paul also gives an interesting account about a significant incident. He says that he rebuked Peter in the presence of people for Peter’s hypocrisy and wrong action (Galatians 2:1). If Peter were recognized as the supreme leader set apart by Christ from other apostles as the Roman Church asserts, it is improbable that Paul would dare to rebuke Peter in the presence of people. Furthermore, the way Peter acted in the incident is not that of an undisputed

More about Galatians 2: 1-3

Open Document